PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota



kydoty
05-13-2013, 04:38 PM
37-30. Will be signed into law tomorrow. 12th state to have gay marriage.

Minn. Senate Votes ?Yes? On Gay Marriage Bill « CBS Minnesota (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/05/13/minn-senate-the-last-legislative-step-for-gay-marriage/)

Brock Beauchamp
05-13-2013, 04:44 PM
Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

kydoty
05-13-2013, 04:49 PM
Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

It's amazing just how quick things turned around here. Six months ago the state was on the verge of burning a gay marriage ban into their constitution. I have to wonder if this would've all happened had the Republicans left the issue alone entirely instead of trying to pander to the worst part of their base.

TheLeviathan
05-13-2013, 05:24 PM
It's amazing how much you can motivate people just by being bitter, indignant a-holes.

Brock Beauchamp
05-13-2013, 05:24 PM
It's amazing just how quick things turned around here. Six months ago the state was on the verge of burning a gay marriage ban into their constitution. I have to wonder if this would've all happened had the Republicans left the issue alone entirely instead of trying to pander to the worst part of their base.

Yep. They got everyone thinking about the issue and most people came to the conclusion "don't care".

As the election season ramped up, I said 2012 was the last wave of anti-gay marriage bills but even I didn't expect this kind of reversal.

mikecgrimes
05-13-2013, 05:36 PM
Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful. 2 billion in new taxes before they deal with the Vikings stadium is somewhat awful. Glad to have this issue out of the way. As a young Republican this issue was always horrible, you just never knew what would come out of an otherwise smart 60 year old.

Kobs
05-13-2013, 05:49 PM
Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

4058

Brock Beauchamp
05-13-2013, 06:46 PM
4058

Can't win 'em all. I was impressed that they almost got rid of her last election, though.

biggentleben
05-13-2013, 09:08 PM
Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

TheLeviathan
05-13-2013, 10:45 PM
Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

This may be a winning strategy to get gay marriage passed around the nation.

kydoty
05-14-2013, 01:05 AM
Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

Unfortunately that story was fake. It came from the Daily Currant, a satire news site.

mike wants wins
05-14-2013, 07:57 AM
I don't think it happens w/o the push to make it unconstitutional. It will be hard to get more than a few more states to embarce freedom and liberty for all w/o SCOTUS forcing them to, unfortunately. I find the irony of being against religious oligarchies in the ME, and the attempt to enforce religion on others in the US to be tasty.....

USAFChief
05-14-2013, 01:29 PM
Good for Minnesota.

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

Brock Beauchamp
05-14-2013, 01:31 PM
Good for Minnesota.

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

Utah is too pragmatic to be last. It will be a southern state.

kydoty
05-14-2013, 01:46 PM
Good for Minnesota.

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

Mississippi. It took them 148 years after slavery ended to admit that it's a bad thing in its constitution.

mike wants wins
05-14-2013, 02:24 PM
It will be a tie on last, because SCOTUS will find the state constitutions unconstitutional this summer.....not sure what happens after that.....

And most of the South is 2-3 generations away from SSM being at least tolerated, according to my friends from there.

Ultima Ratio
05-14-2013, 05:44 PM
How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

mikecgrimes
05-14-2013, 06:40 PM
I don't think it happens w/o the push to make it unconstitutional.

2012 was a landslide in the state house and senate for Minnesota Democrats. Trust me the push to kill it didn't matter. This is the sort of issue that had unstoppable momentum over the years. The moment it could pass it would and thats what happened.

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

mikecgrimes
05-14-2013, 06:42 PM
It will be a tie on last, because SCOTUS will find the state constitutions unconstitutional this summer.....

No chance of that, they probably won't even take up the issue.

TheLeviathan
05-14-2013, 07:33 PM
How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

4069

biggentleben
05-14-2013, 07:47 PM
Unfortunately that story was fake. It came from the Daily Currant, a satire news site.

Yes, I realize. I just enjoyed the satire of her being so butt-hurt that she'd leave. Yet, who would want her?!

USAFChief
05-15-2013, 01:02 AM
2012 was a landslide in the state house and senate for Minnesota Democrats. Trust me the push to kill it didn't matter. This is the sort of issue that had unstoppable momentum over the years. The moment it could pass it would and thats what happened.

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways. She's leaving, right? Isn't that what she said? She's giving YOU up.

Can't say I blame her, what with the whole pillar of salt thing in play now.

Hornhead
05-15-2013, 01:12 AM
How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 06:11 AM
As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.

jay
05-15-2013, 09:36 AM
No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.

Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 10:44 AM
Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.

I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 12:00 PM
Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.

Very true, it's a problem with the GOP in general... They've spent half a decade silencing and/or removing moderates who refuse to radicalize. All you have to do is look at how the party went through such lengths to marginalize Jon Huntsman during the last convention season to see how the party treats people who prefer common sense over party rhetoric.

At some point, the party has to come back to the middle. How far they're going to continue heading toward CrazyTown is very much up for debate, though.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 12:05 PM
I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.

There's a huge difference between polygamy and incestual relations, if only from a physical standpoint. One has medical reasoning to prevent legally... The other has a societal reason to prevent legally due to its past use to subjugate and oppress women, especially young girls (some of this can be applied to incestual marriage as well).

For the record, I have no problems with polygamy on its face; I have no business telling others what to do with their lives if it does not affect me. My only problem comes with its past (and in some circles, current) societal implementation and abuse of the system.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 12:25 PM
Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 01:24 PM
Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

I don't care, honestly. I also see it being such an insignificant problem that it isn't worth the time it takes to theorize over its morality or social impact.

Approximately 8-10% of the population is gay. Gay siblings who wish to marry each other is, what, .00001%?

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 01:40 PM
Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

We should probably make sure our liquor laws account for raging cases of Benjamin Button disease or just throw it all out.

mike wants wins
05-15-2013, 02:31 PM
Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

Like infertile heterosexuals? I don't get the whole "marriage is about procreation" argument at all.

Marriage is about tax policy, adoption rights, medical decisions, all kinds of things that have nothing to do with either love or procreation. If society wants to say that only 2 people can be married to each other, and have these rights and responsibilities, isn't that what societal rules are for? For me, if 5 people want to live together and call themselves married, great. But society can say "you aren't married for the legal rights of 'married' people. Live together all you want, have kids all you want, but you won't have the same legal rights as others."

Oh, and that would be a choice, "marrying" more than 1 person. Unlike sexual orientation, which is pretty clearly not any more a choice than skin color.

PseudoSABR
05-15-2013, 02:36 PM
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!

mike wants wins
05-15-2013, 03:02 PM
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!


It's almost like your happiness does not effect my happiness---Stephen Colbert*

*approximate quote...

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 03:18 PM
It's almost like your happiness does not effect my happiness---Stephen Colbert*

*approximate quote...

Pfft, your tune will change when our loving god nukes us for having naughty fun. That'll learn ya.

Hornhead
05-15-2013, 03:46 PM
There's a huge difference between polygamy and incestual relations, if only from a physical standpoint. One has medical reasoning to prevent legally... The other has a societal reason to prevent legally due to its past use to subjugate and oppress women, especially young girls (some of this can be applied to incestual marriage as well).

For the record, I have no problems with polygamy on its face; I have no business telling others what to do with their lives if it does not affect me. My only problem comes with its past (and in some circles, current) societal implementation and abuse of the system.

Having a child later in life comes with increased medical risks too, but I don’t hear the outcry against that. And the historical share of subjugation, abuse, and incest found in traditional marriage cannot be ignored. More compelling arguments than these are required if further expansion of marriage is to be prevented.

mike wants wins
05-15-2013, 03:54 PM
Pfft, your tune will change when our loving god nukes us for having naughty fun. That'll learn ya.

It is true, if a loving god destroyed the earth in his wrath, my tune would definitely change.

mikecgrimes
05-15-2013, 04:39 PM
No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party.

Thats Michele Bachmann not the tea party. The great thing about the tea party is our message attracts all kinds. If you think we should continue to increase spending beyond inflation fine but if you just happen to care about social issues which have nothing to do with the tea party worry about the individuals. Liberals don't get to define us.

mikecgrimes
05-15-2013, 04:42 PM
Jon Huntsman? His campaign was so weak nobody had any clue what he even stood for. Tim Pawlenty ran a much stronger campaign and he was out a year early.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 05:00 PM
Thats Michele Bachmann not the tea party. The great thing about the tea party is our message attracts all kinds. If you think we should continue to increase spending beyond inflation fine but if you just happen to care about social issues which have nothing to do with the tea party worry about the individuals. Liberals don't get to define us.

It's not liberals. From the Tea Party website (pay particular attention to #15):

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 05:06 PM
Having a child later in life comes with increased medical risks too, but I don’t hear the outcry against that. And the historical share of subjugation, abuse, and incest found in traditional marriage cannot be ignored. More compelling arguments than these are required if further expansion of marriage is to be prevented.

Except that those problems are still prevalent in polygamous marriages. In fact, you could say that modern polygamy is built on those principles, especially after it went underground.

And there's a significant difference between "if you have a child after 40, there's a 4% chance it could suffer mental disabilities" versus "you have a child with your sister, there's a 50% chance it will carry a regressive gene and will suffer from mental disabilities".

Let's not even pretend they're the same thing.

EVEN THEN I'm not entirely against familial relationships, provided extensive gene testing is done beforehand as a common sense precaution. Hey, it's not on me. Not my problem who loves whom. But when the risk is so high versus the amount of people who wish to partake in such a thing, society as a whole probably isn't going to agree with me.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 05:52 PM
The foregoing confirms my suspicion that support (on this board at least) for un/redefining marriage is not one of principle but of emotion.

If anyone is interested in a principled argument, you can view this video as expository of the thinking I support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlgkDCZI1CQ

I'll leave it at that because I don't think any posters here are genuinely interested in the arguments, are not open to changing their minds, and the conversation will (and has) quickly erode into mush.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 06:01 PM
The foregoing confirms my suspicion that support (on this board at least) for un/redefining marriage is not one of principle but of emotion.

I can't speak for anyone else but it's not based on emotion for me... It's based entirely on the fact that gay marriage does not affect me one bit and I generally avoid preventing consenting adults from doing things that do not affect me.

What's your reason?

Hornhead
05-15-2013, 06:19 PM
Except that those problems are still prevalent in polygamous marriages. In fact, you could say that modern polygamy is built on those principles, especially after it went underground.

And there's a significant difference between "if you have a child after 40, there's a 4% chance it could suffer mental disabilities" versus "you have a child with your sister, there's a 50% chance it will carry a regressive gene and will suffer from mental disabilities".

Let's not even pretend they're the same thing.

EVEN THEN I'm not entirely against familial relationships, provided extensive gene testing is done beforehand as a common sense precaution. Hey, it's not on me. Not my problem who loves whom. But when the risk is so high versus the amount of people who wish to partake in such a thing, society as a whole probably isn't going to agree with me.
Those problems are still prevalent among non-polygamous marriages too. We all see plenty of women who willingly marry creeps. Anyhow, what if a woman wants to marry two men, or three men want to marry each other? In a land of 316 million, such cases are certainly out there. What leg do we have to stand on when those people come knocking to demand their rights? I can already see people being labeled Islamophobes since multiple wives are more common in that culture.

I’d be interested in the source for your stats, because I wouldn't be surprised in the least if siblings in their mid-20’s produced children as healthy as a couples in their mid-40s. Is that your only objection?

I agree with Ultima Ratio that support for redefining marriage is largely emotional, although Brock shows a more practical approach than most. But if principle is the basis, I'd like to know what it is. I've heard "love" mentioned, but we don't allow polygamy regardless of how much love is involved. The subject of "rights" is brought up, but California withholds no rights and the fight here is as fervent as anywhere. Please let me know what I'm missing.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 06:46 PM
Those problems are still prevalent among non-polygamous marriages too. We all see plenty of women who willingly marry creeps. Anyhow, what if a woman wants to marry two men, or three men want to marry each other? In a land of 316 million, such cases are certainly out there. What leg do we have to stand on when those people come knocking to demand their rights? I can already see people being labeled Islamophobes since multiple wives are more common in that culture.

Prevalent, yes. But not nearly as prevalent as we've seen in the underground polygamous cultures spread around this country. Going to middle school in rural Utah, I saw some pretty ugly sides to polygamy, such as the girls who were pulled out of school by their fathers the MOMENT they were legally allowed to do so.

If we can find a way to empower those girls and do away with some of those horrible elements that are so intertwined with polygamy, I would have zero issues legalizing the practice.


I’d be interested in the source for your stats, because I wouldn't be surprised in the least if siblings in their mid-20’s produced children as healthy as a couples in their mid-40s. Is that your only objection?

I haven't looked up any stats in a long time but there's a much larger chance of birth disorders with children from familial relationships. If I recall correctly, the chances of two first cousins having a child with birth defects is about the same chance a woman of 40 has of birthing a child with similar problems.

I don't feel like looking it up but once you get closer than first cousins, that number jumps quite a bit (as you'd probably expect). If you have "inbred" children borne from "inbred" children (two generations of familial relationships), that number jumps to the stratosphere.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 07:10 PM
To continue the pragmatist line of thinking, gay marriage makes sense from a financial standpoint.

Married people tend to be more stable. Having a built-in support network, they tend to rely on the state less and give more to it.

Also, allowing gay people to marry means there will be more adoptions, given that gay people can't have children on their own without artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. More adopted children means less of a state burden in the foster care system, as there are plenty of children to adopt in this country.

All in all, I can't really see a justifiable reason not to allow it.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 07:22 PM
What's your reason?

Whatever that...thing...was that was posted earlier. You know, if you could find a word laser capable of penetrating the dense layer of dressed up jargon.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 07:36 PM
If anyone is interested in a principled argument, you can view this video as expository of the thinking I support.

So you support circular reasoning? This exposition does nothing to justify one of the premises. I'll break it down:

1. Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition
2. It is that way by definition because men and women procreate
3. Since others can't procreate, they don't fit the definition

Except the definition is arbitrary. there is nothing justifying that premise. Marriage exists between all sorts of people who cannot procreate (the "in principle" argument is only relevant in a hypothetical, in the real world it is a meaningless distinction) not to mention that marriage is also reinforced as a unit of financial stability. You can't just appeal to the definition as justification for not changing it. You have to support the reasoning for the definition.

Considering gay couples are raising children (adoption or not) and society could benefit from encouraging stable relationships - those premises are, at the very least, very much in question. However, if you're comfortable with circular arguments - go for it.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 07:38 PM
But if principle is the basis, I'd like to know what it is. I've heard "love" mentioned, but we don't allow polygamy regardless of how much love is involved.

Personally, I don't like using the law to punish religious taboos. I like using reason and fairness, which gay marriage passes the muster of both.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 07:43 PM
Whatever that...thing...was that was posted earlier. You know, if you could find a word laser capable of penetrating the dense layer of dressed up jargon.

I couldn't help but laugh at that video. It was basically nothing more than an incoherent string of words that led directly back to the same point, which was "Gay people shouldn't get married... because of stuff. In principle."

He sure did dress it up purdy, though.

mikecgrimes
05-15-2013, 08:13 PM
It's not liberals. From the Tea Party website (pay particular attention to #15):

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.



Anyone can put up a tea party website or start a tea party organization. We are tea party for the same reason the original tea party occurred. I'm sure many in that group back then were slave owners, I'm sure many thought the idea of slave ownership was pathetic.

By the way traditional family values are a good thing, two parents who teach morals to their children is a lot better then most family situations these days. I don't happen to care about the sex of the two parents, but if someone else does is that any reason to oppose their fiscal stances to the point that the likes of Barrack Obama and Mark Dayton get voted into office?

mikecgrimes
05-15-2013, 08:16 PM
By the way I googled "the tea party website" the web site you cited didn't come up. But if you're politics require you to believe we hate gays I guess you have to do what you have to do.

drjim
05-15-2013, 09:21 PM
Anyone can put up a tea party website or start a tea party organization. We are tea party for the same reason the original tea party occurred. I'm sure many in that group back then were slave owners, I'm sure many thought the idea of slave ownership was pathetic.

By the way traditional family values are a good thing, two parents who teach morals to their children is a lot better then most family situations these days. I don't happen to care about the sex of the two parents, but if someone else does is that any reason to oppose their fiscal stances to the point that the likes of Barrack Obama and Mark Dayton get voted into office?

Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 09:32 PM
By the way I googled "the tea party website" the web site you cited didn't come up. But if you're politics require you to believe we hate gays I guess you have to do what you have to do.

It's the first non-wiki and non-news link when you Google "Tea Party".

Tea Party - Join the Movement. Support the Tea Party. (http://www.teaparty.org/)

Or you can just assume the web developer guy doesn't understand how Google works and how websites gain priority and "legitimacy". I suppose that's logical.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 09:37 PM
Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.

Exactly. I'm amused by the Tea Party's insistence they are still a separate entity. It's kind of cute in a pathetic sort of way.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 10:09 PM
Levi,

The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years. If that's merely arbitrary then every word is arbitrary since. Hence the living and breathing approach to language now, or what I am glad to call the disrespect and ruinous attitude toward language.

You would do well to look up the difference between an explanation and an argument. You've given an explanation.

Socrates is a man. Men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is an argument, but given your understanding above, you'd think this is circular, and so every deductive argument would then beg the question.

Another example:

1. Bob is an unmarried male
2. A bachelor is an unmarried male
3. Therefore, Bob is a bachelor.

Another perfectly fine argument that is sound, not circular in reasoning or any other fallacy.

That's a lot to correct something almost irrelevant but perhaps worth it.

Why don't you tell us why the definition should change? Why do you think the institution was in place from the beginning and has lasted since time immemorial? You and others act like it was just dreamed up recently in order to discriminate.

The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not.

Since there can be no progeny from the amorous relationship of two males and two females, the institution/contract of marriage does not apply.

Now that's why the definition is what it is.

Until the recent undefining of marriage, a brother couldn't marry a brother, nor marry his sister. It's clear that the reason it was unlawful to marry his sister was because of the deleterious genetic effects. But if that remains the only reason/case to not allow close relatives to marry (with the natural end being procreation), and since two gay male cousins' love cannot result in children, then by this new definition (whatever it is isn't even clear today), they should be allowed to marry. Brock is ok with that and with plural marriage, but says traditionalists are "without a conscience." Good grief.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 10:14 PM
Personally, I don't like using the law to punish religious taboos. I like using reason and fairness, which gay marriage passes the muster of both.

Are you against murder, theft, adultery (maybe not actually) and so on? Be careful, they're all religious taboos. Does your hate of religion go so deep as to religiously disagree with anything "they" support, because, ya know... it's religious and stuff?

BTW, thanks for bringing religion into this now.... out of nowhere as it was not used before in anything I've argued nor elsewhere. I know, you've got to make it about religious oppression -- easier to demagogue.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 10:17 PM
I couldn't help but laugh at that video. It was basically nothing more than an incoherent string of words that led directly back to the same point, which was "Gay people shouldn't get married... because of stuff. In principle."

He sure did dress it up purdy, though.


I'll leave it at that because I don't think any posters here are genuinely interested in the arguments, are not open to changing their minds, and the conversation will (and has) quickly erode into mush.

*Bump

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 10:28 PM
The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years.

It has? Across all cultures and civilizations? "Unmarried male" is not an arguable definition. Unmarried is a fact that can be proven or disproven. Ditto male. This is not the same kind of premise as - "Marriage is for procreation". I'd argue there is every bit as strong a financial transaction component to marriage historically as it is about procreation.

In fact, here is a simple definition from wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but where it comes from is reputable. You can find literally thousands of similar definitions if you'd like):"A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."

Goes a bit beyond procreation - no? Your Socrates argument only works because we agree on the premises. You can "explain" the definition until you're blue in the face, but no one need accept it when there is significant evidence that your definition is incomplete and, dare I say, conveniently simplistic and with a high degree of historical omissions, to help your point.


Why don't you tell us why the definition should change?

Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships. Gays are living (or want to live) in stable economic partnerships and it benefits the state to have this. Check. Gays are raising children. (In many places, including Minnesota) Check. It also benefits the state, as Brock said, to allow children otherwise not being raised in stable environments more opportunities to do so. Downside? Well, it might mess with dubious definitions, but I guess I'm not too worried about that.


The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not.

No, guardianship/family laws do that. One need not be married to be "accountable" to the well being of their progeny. Or do you contend otherwise? If I have a baby with some woman and don't marry her....I'm scot-free on my responsibilities? In fact, a gay man who impregnates a woman is responsible to his child, even if he marries a man. I could go on about how ridiculous your notion is.

You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 10:33 PM
Are you against murder, theft, adultery (maybe not actually) and so on?

So...so predictable. I almost posted in tiny print how long it would take someone to bite on that.

We don't punish murder because it is a religious taboo. We punish murder because it threatens the safety of our societal bonds. Ditto stealing. That they happen to also be religious taboos has historical roots, but is far from interchangeable. I'm glad most religions agree murder is wrong (mighty nice of them, though that definition has hardly remained well followed by most all of them), but that's not why we punish it. I won't oppose laws that coincide with religious teachings, but I don't want laws based solely on them either.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 10:39 PM
So...so predictable. I almost posted in tiny print how long it would take someone to bite on that.

We don't punish murder because it is a religious taboo. We punish murder because it threatens the safety of our societal bonds. Ditto stealing. That they happen to also be religious taboos is unrelated. I'm glad most religions agree murder is wrong (mighty nice of them, though that definition has hardly remained well followed by most all of them), but that's not why we punish it. I won't oppose laws that coincide with religious teachings, but I don't want laws based solely on them either.

And I've never used religion to argue anything, so what's your point? Why bring it up? Marriage pre-dates organized religion, but religion reinforces it and supports it, correctly so, as it does with many other things in the civil society.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 10:42 PM
And I've never used religion to argue anything, so what's your point? .

Well...

A) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Hornhead, who I know from BYTO and I know he will reference religion

and

B) Religion is all that's left for most people once their dubious reasoning is exposed. So why not skip the step of exposing it and just get right to the real issue for most? You're welcome to carry on your dubious reasoning though.

Hornhead
05-15-2013, 11:21 PM
To continue the pragmatist line of thinking, gay marriage makes sense from a financial standpoint.

Married people tend to be more stable. Having a built-in support network, they tend to rely on the state less and give more to it.

Also, allowing gay people to marry means there will be more adoptions, given that gay people can't have children on their own without artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. More adopted children means less of a state burden in the foster care system, as there are plenty of children to adopt in this country.

All in all, I can't really see a justifiable reason not to allow it.
Your logic is pretty easy to follow. But permitting adoption by same-sex couples can be accomplished without redefining marriage. Why can’t we have agencies that specifically cater to such couples? Interesting side note. Many longstanding religious agencies were taken out of the adoption business because they were forced to adhere to new laws prohibiting discrimination with regard to sexual-orientation. Catholic leaders requested a religious exemption. They were denied and forced to shut their doors or disregard their religious beliefs. In the politicians’ minds, and probably those of most people, better for the children to be orphans than not have a chance of being placed with a same-sex couple. Soon, any anytime marriage is mentioned, you risk being accused of discrimination if same-sex couples are not brought into the conversation. In 2008, e-Harmony was legally forced to create a site that catered to homosexuals or go out of business. How's that for tolerance? Religious beliefs will only come increasingly under attack. We are also saying that gender is interchangeable, basically meaningless. No wonder we are seeing more kids confused about their gender. This is some of the damage I see.

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 11:27 PM
A lexical definition from Webster:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

That's what it is (what the dictionary provides - at least for lexical definitions) and I've already provided the why it is -- for the sake of children, the natural end of such a union -- in principle (in essence).

The what it is (the definition) is the conclusion of the argument whose premises provide the why.

You can stipulate a definition for anything, and your wikipedia definition is just that. Now, I'd like to stipulate that orange juice is the delicious drink comprised of lemons, water and sugar.

Ah-ha! There is no orange in orange juice!


Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships.

Agree. Children will have the best chance if parented by both mother and father who are committed to each other -- but when this does not happen (sadly) they still have a financial obligation. Of course financial security is part and parcel to the well-being of a family.

Before there was such a thing as alimony and the State, marriage held fathers accountable, kept them around. And as we know, kids, especially boys, are dramatically more prone to violence, poverty and dependence on the state and continuing this cycle when the father is absent (even if providing financial support).




Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011.
In 2008, American poverty rates were 13.2% for the whole population and 19% for children, compared to 28.7% for female-headed households.
Source: Edin, K. & Kissane R. J. (2010). Poverty and the American family: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 460-479.







Father factor in emotional and behavioral problems
Data from three waves of the Fragile Families Study (N= 2,111) was used to examine the prevalence and effects of mothers’ relationship changes between birth and age 3 on their children’s well being. Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Living in a single-mother household is equivalent to experiencing 5.25 partnership transitions.
Source: Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083
A sample of 4,027 resident fathers and children from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Survey was used to investigate the effects of a biological father’s multipartner fertility (having at least one child with more than one mother) on adolescent health. Resident fathers engaging in multipartner fertility were older, more likely to be White, and had lower education levels and income, compared to fathers with one partner. Results indicated children’s externalizing behaviors were negatively affected directly and indirectly when their biological father had children with multiple partners.
Source: Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Scott, M. E. (2009). Fathering with multiple partners: Links to children’s well-being in early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 608–63




Kids deserve and do better with fathers raising them along with their mothers. This is a fact. There are coping and social skills you get from a mother and different coping and social skills you get from a father. This is well documented.


I'd like answers to both of the following:

1. Is love a sufficient condition to marry?

2. Even if the law changes to give homosexual couples the same legal benefits of marriage, why must the word "marriage" be redefined? Should we care about the legal benefits or the word? Why? Why not call it a civil union as I've already shown that there is an essential difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals with regard to the outcome of their sex -- in principle/essence -- namely, the possibility of children.



You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.


Do you ever get tire of this?

howeda7
05-15-2013, 11:30 PM
I learned so much from this thread. I had no idea that the primary concern with gay marriage was gay brothers and sisters marrying each other! Why did no one bring this up on the Senate or House floor?

Seriously, good for MN. I have yet to hear one good reason against it that didn't involve thumping a Bible. The slippery slope fallacy get sillier every day. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Has polygamy been legalized? Have hundreds of gay brothers married? No? Well I'm sure it's coming down the slope any day now...

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 11:40 PM
You're welcome to carry on your dubious reasoning though.

Do you even want to be taken seriously? If my reasoning is so dubious, you'd do well to expose it and explain why this is so rather than droning on that it is some kind of self-evident truth.

Have you wondered why people who used to respond to you no longer do? Insufferable.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 11:41 PM
That's what it is (what the dictionary provides - at least for lexical definitions) and I've already provided the why it is -- for the sake of children, the natural end of such a union -- in principle (in essence).

So...wait...you're going to argue that the "why" of marriage is based on a premise that is guaranteed of truth? You do understand that your earlier implication that you are using a deductive argument is utterly ridiculous right? Well, I'll say it again, your premise is highly dubious. You can label that definition as who, what, where, how, why, or huh for all I care. It's not any less dubious to claim that procreation is the sole, undisputed reason for marriage and has been across time and cultures. At the very face of it, a claim that broad and that definitive is going to take an extremely thorough explanation of proof. So prove it. A definition is not proof. And in case you try and circumvent backing up your claims, I'll bust your deductive nonsense with all I have to: Romans had same sex marriage. So it has not "always" been this way. (This is, of course, only one of MANY arguments that easily debunk your premise)

I'd also argue that marriage was used as a way of gaining political power. Or of gaining financial advantages. Of course procreation has been PART of why marriage has existed, but the central, "principled" reason of it? That's just ridiculous. But by all means. I only need one counter example. I already gave it. Your premise is now in doubt. Ball is in your court. Unless of course you want to jargon-filled rant by Keyes, in which case, please elaborate.


Before there was such a thing as alimony and the State, marriage held fathers accountable, kept them around.

We don't live then. We live now. Family law creates obligations to progeny. Not marriage laws. You're utterly and completely wrong. The rest of this was an intentional sidetrack/tangent to divert from how completely erroneous your claim was.


1. Is love a sufficient condition to marry?

I don't even know what that means. I didn't have to check "I truly love her" on my marriage license. Here's a piece of advice - if you can't speak your point clearly, you come off as deliberately obfuscating. This question is completely unclear.

As for your second point, I'd rather call all marriages a "civil union". It's a much more accurate definition regardless of the sexes being married.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 11:43 PM
Do you even want to be taken seriously? If my reasoning is so dubious, you'd do well to expose it and explain why this is so rather than droning on that it is some kind of self-evident truth.

Have you wondered why people who used to respond to you no longer do? Insufferable.

I already did. The very notion that the only definition of marriage is "for procreation" is certainly not an undisputed, universally accepted fact. Therefore, your first premise is, by definition, dubious. Romans had gay marriage. So did some areas of China. Some cultures only worried about finances, not procreation.

Are you truly sticking by the idea that marriage has never existed, in any culture throughout human history, for any reason but procreation? All I need is one counter-example and I already provided a couple. What is hard to understand about why your claim is now dubious?

Ultima Ratio
05-15-2013, 11:52 PM
So you don't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, but know so much about logic and arguments.

1. If it's raining outside, I have my umbrella.
2. I have my umbrella
3. Therefore, it's raining outside.

Evaluate the argument, indicating the necessary and sufficient conditions if there are any. I'm sorry, but I feel with must go through this before we can move on because if we can't count to one hundred by tens together, we surely can't do integrations. This coming from the guy who calls me pretentious. Look that word up. Maybe they re/undefined that one for you too.

biggentleben
05-15-2013, 11:54 PM
Heck, the first marriage (if you're one of the extremists who wants to call it that, albeit not defined in Biblical literature) was not began with any children in mind. The purpose of that "marriage" was for shared responsibilities in the Garden of Eden, not procreation. Let's jump off the Bible angle because it's simply incorrect if you know your Bible and not the "talking points Bible" commonly used on conservative talk radio and Fox News.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 11:57 PM
Hey, I just realized most all Christians should agree with me about there being confused reasons for marriage. Their holy book says this:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; n (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%202.18#footnote0)I will make him a helper fit for5 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%202.18#footnote1) him.”

So there you go. Why do we have marriage: Because dammit...sandwiches don't make themselves!

Edit: Ben beat me too it!

biggentleben
05-15-2013, 11:58 PM
Hey, I just realized most all Christians should agree with me about the initial reason for marriage. Their holy book says this:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; n (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%202.18#footnote0)I will make him a helper fit for5 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%202.18#footnote1) him.”

So there you go. Why do we have marriage: Because dammit...sandwiches don't make themselves!

I took this to my better half, and I ended up wearing that sandwich. It was quite tasty, though. Dang that dijon mustard does the trick!

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:00 AM
So you don't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, but know so much about logic and arguments.

You implied your premise that marriage was for procreation was the start of your deductive argument. If I took taht implication wrong...by all means: state your argument clearly. Not some ranting nonsense from Alan Keyes. Let's go back to Brock's question:

What, exactly, do you believe?

Then, if you'd like, I'll gladly answer this. I don't see a purpose in it if you're going to have a veiled argument you only share snippets of or let someone else talk for you.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 12:09 AM
What, exactly, do you believe?



I thought I'd answered this several times.

The onus is on those who wish to change definitions and grant benefits to argue why? I'm trying to get you to do so by asking what the conditions for marriage must be. All I hear is that you should be able to marry whomever you love. Is that it?

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:13 AM
I thought I'd answered this several times.

1. No, you first posted something unclear (at best) and a jargon-filled Alan Keyes video. So, no, still waiting. Clarity on your part would be helpful. You continue to imply there is a settled, universally agreed purpose for marriage, but refuse to make that clear and bristle when that claim is placed on you. I don't want to misrepresent you, but you refuse to clarify.

2. I haven't said anything about love other than asking for clarification about your confused question and making a snarky comment.

3. I already explained my conditions for marriage in response to you. Complete with checks.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:16 AM
You know what, maybe I missed it. Maybe it's my bad. Can anyone else explain to me what Ultima Ratio's position is? Perhaps I missed the "several times". I'd appreciate the help.

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 12:17 AM
I already did. The very notion that the only definition of marriage is "for procreation" is certainly not an undisputed, universally accepted fact. Therefore, your first premise is, by definition, dubious. Romans had gay marriage. So did some areas of China. Some cultures only worried about finances, not procreation.

Are you truly sticking by the idea that marriage has never existed, in any culture throughout human history, for any reason but procreation? All I need is one counter-example and I already provided a couple. What is hard to understand about why your claim is now dubious?
I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments. By this logic the infertile and elderly have no place in marriage. The 4,000+ year definition holds greater sway. Folks like to draw comparisons with slavery and racism as wrongs in history that needed righting, and that same-sex marriage is part of this continuum. While many of history's great moral leaders spoke in favor of free societies and equality among the races, none ever spoke in favor of same-sex marriage. Not until recently has anyone deemed "awful" the belief of marriage as male-female. Do people forget this was Obama's stance just one year ago? Why wasn't he bashed at a small-minded hater?

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:22 AM
I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments

Certainly many Christians make strong arguments against procreation as the reason why. I had a few I was going to post, but figured my sammich line was way better.

To your point, I agree there are better reasons than procreation. The problem with your position is it violates a very basic fallacy of appeal to tradition. So Ultima's position (whatever it may be) is at least aware enough to not venture there. It's just another dubious basis for a belief, how much more dubious than Ultima's sort of depends on what his actually is.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 12:24 AM
Levi, this is what you wrote:
Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships.

This is where you say "check". Is this correct? I've already agreed with this and expanded on it further. These are purposes of marriage, not limits -- though yes, I certainly agree that the purposes of marriage do and should inform the definition, the scope and limits to who can enter into a marriage. Of course, for me that means one man, one woman. How about you?

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 12:38 AM
I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments. By this logic the infertile and elderly have no place in marriage.

Age is an accident of one's nature. Accidents are things that may be different or change, without changing the essence of that being. For example: the essence (or principle) of the eye is to see. Whether one's eyes are green, grey, or blue are unessential -- or accidental to the eye.

The natural coupling of male and female is progeny. That's what is meant by "in principle" -- In principle, a homosexual couple cannot beget children, no matter the accidental age of the couple. I'm don't mean to bludgeon you, horn head, with this distinction, but it is paramount. This distinction was made well-known in Aristotle's metaphysics and since. So if I am too jargony for you or others, it's because I'm accustomed to this language and find it immeasurably helpful in order to avoid making superficial claims. I could certainly go on to explain this in greater detail, but don't wish to 'sound' condescending. If you watched the Keyes video I posted, he uses this language. I posted it because I find opponents less likely to name-call (me anyway) if I can appeal to another source, who makes the point crystal clear in my mind, but again, this may need some unpacking for those unfamiliar with Aristotelean or scholastic terminology.

USAFChief
05-16-2013, 01:03 AM
I thought I'd answered this several times.

The onus is on those who wish to change definitions and grant benefits to argue why? I'm trying to get you to do so by asking what the conditions for marriage must be. All I hear is that you should be able to marry whomever you love. Is that it?
Here's my argument. Society has seen fit to codify marriage into our government structure, through the granting of rights, privileges and benefits. Society has also drawn the line of that definition at "two consenting adults."

Our government is originally codified through our constitution. Our constitution tells us we are all to be treated equally under the law.

Therefore, our constitution requires that we either extend the same rights, privileges and benefits to all pairs of consenting adults, or we get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

I'd prefer the former, but I could live with the later. What I can't abide is unequal treatment under the law.

The rest pretty much a bunch of hoohah.

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 01:14 AM
Certainly many Christians make strong arguments against procreation as the reason why. I had a few I was going to post, but figured my sammich line was way better.

To your point, I agree there are better reasons than procreation. The problem with your position is it violates a very basic fallacy of appeal to tradition. So Ultima's position (whatever it may be) is at least aware enough to not venture there. It's just another dubious basis for a belief, how much more dubious than Ultima's sort of depends on what his actually is.
I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy. I recall asking on the previous board to what you appeal. I believe the answer was . . . your heart. A society consisting of each doing what is right in his own eyes will not stand. We are not talking about reliance on a family tradition of eating tofurkey on Thanksgiving. This is a total disregard of all religious AND secular tradition throughout human history. That's a pretty big deal just so a tiny fraction of the population can obtain rights that can easily be granted to a same-sex couples without redefining marriage.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 01:21 AM
Here's my argument. Society has seen fit to codify marriage into our government structure, through the granting of rights, privileges and benefits. Society has also drawn the line of that definition at "two consenting adults."

Our government is originally codified through our constitution. Our constitution tells us we are all to be treated equally under the law.

Therefore, our constitution requires that we either extend the same rights, privileges and benefits to all pairs of consenting adults, or we get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

I'd prefer the former, but I could live with the later. What I can't abide is unequal treatment under the law.

The rest pretty much a bunch of hoohah.

Very good. I've discussed these two horns of the dillemma with colleagues, and just stipulating that the court decides there is an equal protection issue, I'd would support the latter horn, but prefer to let the states decide, again, unless it is decided that equal protection must supersede the 10th amendment. Of course I don't agree that this amounts to an equal protection issue. If so, when did it become discriminatory? I would also prefer to get government out of marriage altogether to avoid the inevitable cases to come, that folks love to ridicule, but will come nonetheless -- that plural marriage would also be found as violating equal protection rights. If marriage is arbitrary, the number of married is wildly arbitrary IMO. It takes a village after all. :)

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 01:29 AM
I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy.
It's not, just inconvenient for some.

mikecgrimes
05-16-2013, 04:22 AM
Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.

I'm not a Republican, have you seen the last two candidates the Republicans put up for president? I have voted Republican for president or governor exactly one time in my life. If Rand Paul is the Republican nominee in 2016 I will vote Republican again. If not good luck to them, and enjoy another loss.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 06:06 AM
*Bump

You can get cute with bumping that all you want but Keye's argument was entirely non-sensical. Listen to the actual content instead of the big words he's throwing around for effect. It's a circular argument and is completely devoid of substance.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 06:51 AM
I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy. I recall asking on the previous board to what you appeal. I believe the answer was . . . your heart..

Yes, appeal to tradition is a basic fallacy. Google will prove this to you if nothing else. "Because something has always happened" is not reason/logic. You can value that if you want, but then you have divorced yourself from a discussion of reason.

I never said I appeal to my heart - I appeal to reason.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 06:59 AM
This is where you say "check". Is this correct?

So now I clarify for a third time and the best I've gotten from you is a grainy Alan Keyes video. At best, this is bad form. At worst, trolling. I'll ask again - could you please just clarify YOUR position. It does make it a bit easier to have a discussion.


Of course, for me that means one man, one woman. How about you?

When I talk about the "what" of marriage, you turn it to "why" and when we talk about the "why" of marriage, you talk about the "what".

Here, I'll lead by example and yet again (ACTUALLY) share my opinion. Marriage is a social contract that a society grants to members to facilitate the raising of children and the partnering of economics for stability. It comes with obligations and privileges pursuant to that.

See. Not so hard. Now you try. No Alan Keyes videos please. I have interpreted you in the past as saying you believe the definition of marriage is inherently about procreation and have offered up many counter examples. The truth is, you have defined the definition in such a way that makes it "in principle" about procreation and the only proof you have for that is your own definition. That is circular.

"Marriage" is a legal construct and a term that has been denoted and used in many ways in many cultures. To use it in the same way as "the nature of fish is to have gills" is just asinine.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 07:39 AM
You can get cute with bumping that all you want but Keye's argument was entirely non-sensical. Listen to the actual content instead of the big words he's throwing around for effect. It's a circular argument and is completely devoid of substance.

Yeah, last I checked having a premise and a conclusion match is circular.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 08:10 AM
Yeah, last I checked having a premise and a conclusion match is circular.

Yep. Let's not confuse substance with verbosity.

Decartes may have been a very smart man and may have had some good points in his meditations but that doesn't mean they weren't circular and that the main premise was lacking in substance because of it.

jay
05-16-2013, 09:22 AM
I was pondering something yesterday...
Can you think of any changes in law to social issues that were based on equal rights that we came to regret? Plenty of laws have been faulty, but those seem to have been focused on outcomes rather than simply rights.

It seems to me that the preponderance of them are at most minor inconveniences to those who value the previous traditions and tend to be things we look back on to say "we really used to do/forbid/think that?"

I prefer the government weren't involved at all, but they sure seem to have had a few things right in that Constitution of ours.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 09:30 AM
I was pondering something yesterday...
Can you think of any changes in law to social issues that were based on equal rights that we came to regret? Plenty of laws have been faulty, but those seem to have been focused on outcomes rather than simply rights.

It seems to me that the preponderance of them are at most minor inconveniences to those who value the previous traditions and tend to be things we look back on to say "we really used to do/forbid/think that?"

I prefer the government weren't involved at all, but they sure seem to have had a few things right in that Constitution of ours.

I can't think of any, which is why I've long believed that the more rights we grant to people, the better off we'll be as a society. There simply isn't much of a downside to giving rational adults the rights they want/need. The overwhelming majority of the time, the only people who care are old folks who just want things "they way they were", which is hardly a reason to do anything, really.

In 40 years, gay marriage opponents will have either adapted to modern culture or their grandchildren will be mortified every time they speak, just as my generation was mortified every time we heard a parent/grandparent utter the word nigger in conversation.

USAFChief
05-16-2013, 09:50 AM
Very good. I've discussed these two horns of the dillemma with colleagues, and just stipulating that the court decides there is an equal protection issue, I'd would support the latter horn, but prefer to let the states decide, again, unless it is decided that equal protection must supersede the 10th amendment. Of course I don't agree that this amounts to an equal protection issue. If so, when did it become discriminatory? I would also prefer to get government out of marriage altogether to avoid the inevitable cases to come, that folks love to ridicule, but will come nonetheless -- that plural marriage would also be found as violating equal protection rights. If marriage is arbitrary, the number of married is wildly arbitrary IMO. It takes a village after all. :)

Marriage has always been sort of "arbitrary." Polygamy was fairly common, including in biblical times, now it isn't. Fathers in some societies still barter away their daughters to the highest bidder, in most societies that no longer happens. Divorce used to be uncommon, now half of all marriages don't survive.

Polygamy might become an issue in the future, we can deal with it then. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, provided we're talking about consenting adults. But that's a discussion for another time, and is only marginally related, at best, to SSM. If something is the right thing to do, and SSM is, then you do it, and deal with any subsequent issues if/when they arise.

I haven't really seen a single argument against SSM that doesn't boil down to "it's not what I think marriage is," or "it's icky." We shouldn't make public policy and law decisions based on either of those objections. And we shouldn't let states make such fundamental constitutional decisions either. We don't let states decide it's OK to discriminate based on race or gender for example . We shouldn't let them decide it's OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation, either.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:04 AM
I haven't really seen a single argument against SSM that doesn't boil down to "it's not what I think marriage is,"

I think (and I can only speculate until it's actually stated) this is what our discussion is here. UR has chosen (and I use that word quite specifically) to think marriage is constituted by one definition. I choose another. At that point we have to talk about whose perspective has more merit as a reasonable, fair, and simple definition.

Definitions crafted specifically to enable one's argument are not reasonable or fair. Their simplicity is out of convenience to achieve their end. Hence the circularity.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 10:05 AM
And we shouldn't let states make such fundamental constitutional decisions either.

Obama made my blood boil with his stance on SSM being a state issue.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, civil rights cannot be a state issue and Obama's stance was pandering of the highest level. Even the most adamant Libertarians (the rational ones, anyway) admit that civil rights are the one thing that needs to be cast with a broad brush in a Republic. It transcends culture and regional "needs". You can't have people losing and gaining fundamental rights simply because they crossed an invisible line within the same nation, otherwise that nation begins to break down on a base level.

Which is where I depart radically from the views of, say, Rand Paul (who I respect in some regards and vehemently disagree with in others).

drjim
05-16-2013, 10:09 AM
Marriage has always been sort of "arbitrary." Polygamy was fairly common, including in biblical times, now it isn't. Fathers in some societies still barter away their daughters to the highest bidder, in most societies that no longer happens. Divorce used to be uncommon, now half of all marriages don't survive.

Polygamy might become an issue in the future, we can deal with it then. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, provided we're talking about consenting adults. But that's a discussion for another time, and is only marginally related, at best, to SSM. If something is the right thing to do, and SSM is, then you do it, and deal with any subsequent issues if/when they arise.

I haven't really seen a single argument against SSM that doesn't boil down to "it's not what I think marriage is," or "it's icky." We shouldn't make public policy and law decisions based on either of those objections. And we shouldn't let states make such fundamental constitutional decisions either. We don't let states decide it's OK to discriminate based on race
or gender for example . We shouldn't let them decide it's OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation, either.

Killing it Chief.

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 10:29 AM
Yes, appeal to tradition is a basic fallacy. Google will prove this to you if nothing else. "Because something has always happened" is not reason/logic. You can value that if you want, but then you have divorced yourself from a discussion of reason.

I never said I appeal to my heart - I appeal to reason.

Dig a little deeper and you will see there is little distinction between reason and the heart. Reason begets “rationalization” which can lead to virtually any behavior, moral or not.


I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.

jay
05-16-2013, 11:20 AM
I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.

In our legal system, a new ruling does in fact invalidate the precedent. However, I wouldn't make the blanket statement that all previous decisions were defective because our morality, as supported by the laws of our elected government, continues to evolve and we certainly still have much more evolving to do. We rarely make decisions that weren't defective in the prism of the past based on the many things we don't know or understand at the time.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:17 PM
I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.

Right, that's not a valid reason which means we have to talk about the actual reasons. I would never suggest traditions are wrong insofar as they are traditions, but they aren't right for tht reason either. I prefer to evaluate the reasons, not its longevity.

As for past rmorality I do think things change - laws certainly. I even think that thirty years go SSM may not have fit because there was significantly less interest in having stable relationships. Of course, religious persecution plays a factor there as well, so it gets tricky. The situation now? Not tricky in my eyes.

howeda7
05-16-2013, 01:04 PM
Marriage has always been sort of "arbitrary." Polygamy was fairly common, including in biblical times, now it isn't. Fathers in some societies still barter away their daughters to the highest bidder, in most societies that no longer happens. Divorce used to be uncommon, now half of all marriages don't survive.

Polygamy might become an issue in the future, we can deal with it then. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, provided we're talking about consenting adults. But that's a discussion for another time, and is only marginally related, at best, to SSM. If something is the right thing to do, and SSM is, then you do it, and deal with any subsequent issues if/when they arise.

I haven't really seen a single argument against SSM that doesn't boil down to "it's not what I think marriage is," or "it's icky." We shouldn't make public policy and law decisions based on either of those objections. And we shouldn't let states make such fundamental constitutional decisions either. We don't let states decide it's OK to discriminate based on race or gender for example . We shouldn't let them decide it's OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation, either.

+1. Most people have come to understand that being gay is not a choice and that they will not cause any harm to anyone. People fighting against it are essentially still arguing that it is a choice and gay people are inherently bad. When they try to argue it without saying these things, they're left twisting pretzels about 'tradition' with no substance.

If the benefits of marriage are to encourage monogomy/stability of the family unit for children, and economic stability why wouldn't a same-sex couple benefit from it just the same? Your religion is still free to do as it sees fit.

howeda7
05-16-2013, 01:09 PM
Dig a little deeper and you will see there is little distinction between reason and the heart. Reason begets “rationalization” which can lead to virtually any behavior, moral or not.


I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.

Nothing has changed regarding the morality of encouraging couples to get married and remain faithful for life. No one is tossing that out. All that has changed is the understanding that gay people are not 'defective' or dangerous and should be treated the same as everyone else. Most people thought this for hundreds of years. They were wrong. It has nothing to do with invalidating everything else about what those same people thought about morality or traditions. Coming to the realization that slavery was wrong didn't invalidate everything our founding fathers believed either. But they were clearly wrong on that issue.

biggentleben
05-16-2013, 01:12 PM
So here's where I see a big difference: because the LAW says same sex marriage is legal does not force the CHURCH of your particular belief to honor, perform, or even respect those marriages. Much like a fitness center could tell a 400-lb man that he would not make a good personal trainer and face no real legal threat, a church can say that they will not allow a same sex marriage to take place in their facility and there is no threat to the church for saying so.

I have heard way too many arguments that boil down to personal religious beliefs. Attempting to legislate religion is always a fallacy as social definitions of religion are always changing. 150 years ago, many Christian faiths in the US endorsed slavery. 100 years ago, many Christian faiths in the US endorsed excluding women from the workforce outside of particular positions (nursing, teaching, and secretarial work, primarily). 50 years ago, many Christian faiths felt a black man and white woman marrying was outside of their religion. Legislate based on what's best/right/equitable for society, not for a religion.

PseudoSABR
05-16-2013, 01:35 PM
Any institution that hasn't changed in 4000 years, probably could use some revision. Just sayin'

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 01:42 PM
Right, that's not a valid reason which means we have to talk about the actual reasons. I would never suggest traditions are wrong insofar as they are traditions, but they aren't right for tht reason either. I prefer to evaluate the reasons, not its longevity.

As for past rmorality I do think things change - laws certainly. I even think that thirty years go SSM may not have fit because there was significantly less interest in having stable relationships. Of course, religious persecution plays a factor there as well, so it gets tricky. The situation now? Not tricky in my eyes.
Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. As for evolving morality, what new moral ground has been broken in the last 1,000 years? Women's suffrage comes to mind, but the Bible teaches equality among the sexes in God's eyes, although with different roles. Pretty radical stuff in its time.

biggentleben
05-16-2013, 01:56 PM
Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

First, it's never been unquestioned. It's never been exclusive in any culture. Marriage as defined by the state and by the church are not one in the same. Many go around the church to get married through the state, so it's obviously not unquestioned as there are already multiple definitions going around. If the angle of why same-sex is your issue, why interracial couples (of any combination of gender), why international couples, why divorced couples? You could extrapolate things from the Bible to state that any of the above are wrong. It'd be a gross misinterpretation of God's Word, but you could continue down the road that many have over the years in this country in order to put down someone else in the society. The difference in this country being that churches can do that, but it is not the nation doing it. Hitler combined both, and obviously, that's an incredibly dangerous road to go down.


Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. As for evolving morality, what new moral ground has been broken in the last 1,000 years? Women's suffrage comes to mind, but the Bible teaches equality among the sexes in God's eyes, although with different roles. Pretty radical stuff in its time.

Moral ground involving slavery, racism, sexism, and the "worthiness" of those who are not part of the church has evolved tremendously within the church in the last 1,000 years. While slavery was outlawed in this country, many Christian denominations did not object to passive slavery that existed in the way house servants were treated in this country or the way people were still enslaved throughout the world. Now you see active movements of Christian believers working against forced labor in any form all over the world. I could go on and explain each, but if you don't see how each has changed in the church's approach to each issue, you're simply blinding yourself. What is stated in the Bible vs. what is the actions of the church have not been equal, and they continue not to be. Using moral/religious authority in this case simply does not work. Especially since it does nothing to affect that religion's ability to discriminate and hate all they want even with this legislation change.

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 02:31 PM
First, it's never been unquestioned. It's never been exclusive in any culture.
Male-female defined every definition of marriage throughout secular history.


Moral ground involving slavery, racism, sexism, and the "worthiness" of those who are not part of the church has evolved tremendously within the church in the last 1,000 years.
Debate of these issues took place during the time of Christ. Not exactly treading new moral ground here.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 02:53 PM
1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the boding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

There's an argument in standard form. Granted, it does utilize necessary and sufficient conditions.

I take 1-5 from Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea." I agree. I don't care what kind of sex you like.

If nothing else, this is instructive as to why marriage should not be re/undefined. The relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals are distinctly different. Therefore, the same word "marriage" does not fittingly apply to both circumstances, purposes and outcomes. Therefore, a different word should be used even in the case that society wants to disregard the substantial merits of the argument (that society has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and not homosexual unions) -- but says, whatever, it's about fairness. It's a distinction with a difference, deserving its own word.

There is no appeal to religion, ickiness, nor arbitrary definition (1-5) in the forgoing, so can we please stop with the red herrings, staw men and ad hominem... of course not, that's why it such a joy to post here.

Furthermore, you might agree with the argument above but say so what, marriage is good, and while society has no interest in encouraging and supporting homosexual unions, adopted kids by homosexuals in a committed marriage-like relationship can fulfill 1-5 pretty well. I wound't disagree that some can, but in principle (there I go again), and principle is what we base laws on, children with two moms or two dads obviously are deprived of a mother or father, necessarily. Proponents of Homosexual "marriage" must then claim that neither a mother or father is essential to the raising of children. Both claims are implicit, if not explicit: 1) Fathers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a father has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second female parent, and 2) Mothers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a mother has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second father.

Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 02:57 PM
Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

At the end of the day, you are choosing not to see them. There are lots of things different between gay rights and civil rights, but one thing that is the same is that those opposed refused to see reason no matter how apparent it is. At the end of the day, you have a deeply held belief that you don't want to have changed and aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. That's fine, but don't pretend it's the merit of the arguments that's the problem.


Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. .

I would agree that preserving order is the key, that's at root in my beliefs about SSM in fact. I would also agree that some moral values are unchanging. I would not, however, place marriage even close to that category.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 03:07 PM
Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

Here is where you breakdown. If you were to hold to your standards (and maybe you believe this, if so, fine) then only traditional marriages that meet all 1-5 would be allowed and divorces would be illegal. You dismiss homosexual marriages because "some or all" of the premises cannot be met. And yet, this is the case for many heterosexual marriages as well. If you can play fast and loose with how much of 1-5 is required for hetrosexual marriage, why not homosexual marriages as well?

You are selectively picking the premises that matter to you to construct your definition. I can very much take issue with how "required" they are. Male bonding with children is a very new concept. (Like, within the last 200 years) Ditto the "transformation" into sexually responsible adults. In the past - women were just married off as soon as they had their first period. There was no such transformation.

You've conveniently selected your premises and claim it's about the "principle" of your argument I deny your premises and history is pretty heavily on my side.

[/quote]Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.[/QUOTE]

Most empirical studies have found little difference either way. But, since you claim you have empirical evidence - I'd like to see it.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 03:27 PM
and principle is what we base laws on

While I'm not going to argue in length over the rest of this, I cannot stress just how much I disagree with this. Laws are not based on principle. They are based on reality.

After all, every court in this land has the right to permanently strike down a law based on merit. If a politician creates a law saying "No one shall declare themselves Warlord of the Moon", that is technically fair "in principle" and most everyone on the planet would agree that no, it's not right for someone to declare themselves Warlord of the Moon.

But you don't go creating a law based on that "principle", especially in this country, because any judge would strike it down due to its lack of discernible impact on society (laws have to be applicable and have a reason to exist or they can be nullified) and whether it's a just law "in principle" is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the court.

USAFChief
05-16-2013, 03:48 PM
... Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea."

Who is advocating that our society do without traditional marriage?

Please let me know who, so I can work to get that person voted out of office. I've been in a "traditional marriage" for over 30 years. Raised three wonderful children. I'm vehemently opposed to someone doing away with my marriage. In fact, I refuse to comply, at penalty of prison, and furthermore...

Oh wait...what's that you say? This isn't about my marriage? Nobody is advocating doing away with two adult's right to get married, except the anti-SSM crowd? It's about giving all adult Americans the same rights and privileges that I enjoy after all? SSM won't have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on my marriage?

Well, in that case, To quote the late, great Emily Litella...never mind.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 03:49 PM
If you were to hold to your standards (and maybe you believe this, if so, fine) then only traditional marriages that meet all 1-5 would be allowed and divorces would be illegal. You dismiss homosexual marriages because "some or all" of the premises cannot be met. And yet, this is the case for many heterosexual marriages as well. If you can play fast and loose with how much of 1-5 is required for hetrosexual marriage, why not homosexual marriages as well?

I'm against divorce, it is especially harmful to children. It's far to easy to divorce and a real shame on today's society.

Heterosexuals can meet all of 1-5 in principle (I think you are still not understanding this term), homosexuals cannot. Some homosexuals may be able to fulfill parts of 1-5 in with some success, and in some cases may do better than heterosexuals (except the procreation part of course -- which is the rub), at achieving these. There are, after all some really bad parents out there, and plenty of single moms and dads, far too many.

Let me try an example to clear up this confusion. Men are in principle stronger than women. This means that the nature of a man is such that his physiology operates and is constructed to be physically stronger, with bigger muscle mass and testosterone. Women are, by nature (in principle), physically weaker. Of course, though, there are many women who are in fact stronger than men. This is an exception (or accident) to the rule (or essence/principle nature) of the strength of men and women.

So, just because some heterosexuals don't procreate and end up being bad parents has bearing on heterosexaul relationships (marriage) in principle.
Contrariwise, homosexuals, by nature, cannot reproduce in a homosexual relationship and therefore cannot fulfill 1-5 -- not even an exception to the rule (unlike a particular woman being stronger than a particular man).


What other premises should I consider?

Am I the only one required to defend things here and show comprehensiveness?

On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

Did you have a mom and dad? Did they teach you different things. I think this point is pretty self-evident.

USAFChief
05-16-2013, 03:56 PM
Killing it Chief. Brodin4Calder disagrees with you. Strongly.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 04:03 PM
On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

That's hardly applicable to this situation. Single parents have a harder time raising children. There is no empirical evidence that gay couples have a harder time raising children, at least none that I am aware of.

USAFChief
05-16-2013, 04:03 PM
What other premises should I consider?

Here's one: your marriage and parental responsibilities are not weakened, or strengthened, based on whether or not two other people get married.

SSM won't create more gay people. It won't result in more heterosexual marriage divorce, or less.

Everything in your post supposes all the above. Stronger heterosexual marriages would be a good thing for this nation. Work on that, rather than working on preventing SSM. One will actually do some good.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 04:06 PM
Heterosexuals can meet all of 1-5 in principle (I think you are still not understanding this term), homosexuals cannot.

But they only meet that "principle" because you have so defined it. We come back to you hiding behind a definition to justify your definition. It's why I've skipped to the premises.

You can't say marriage is only for heterosexuals and then nit-pick hetero-sexual specific qualities to inform you definition and say it's air-tight. That's convenient and disingenuous. As an example to the contrary, I have a very broad definition and it opens up the possibility of many kinds of marriages I'm not nearly as comfortable with. It's the price of not being convenient. Your conditions are so narrowly selected as to present the illusion that your conclusion is necessarily valid. It's not.

I've defended my premises. My premises are very simple and pretty easily defended. Let's recap a few things you've thrown at the wall here and are abandoning:

1. Marriage laws enforce care of progeny -utterly and completely false.
2. Marriage (in principle) has been the same since before recorded time (if it's the same definition you just gave, I'd hope even you'd admit how ridiculous that claim was)

Are you really contending that your principled definition1-5 has existed throughout all recorded time as you claimed earlier?


On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

I know that lacking one parent can hurt a child. But court cases have been wrangling with the two hetero vs. two homo parents for a decade. The studies are not in agreement and certainly show no consensus. Single parent studies are pretty irrelevant to this.

As for your last point. I'm not sure if two women couldn't have taught me the same things, I haven't had that experience. Nor, historically has anyone else. To call it inferior presupposes the experience sufficient enough to prove that. I don't believe enough experiences exist to even form an opinion one way or the other. You claimed there was empirical fact to this point. I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 04:09 PM
Let me try an example to clear up this confusion. Men are in principle stronger than women. This means that the nature of a man is such that his physiology operates and is constructed to be physically stronger, with bigger muscle mass and testosterone. Women are, by nature (in principle), physically weaker. Of course, though, there are many women who are in fact stronger than men. This is an exception (or accident) to the rule (or essence/principle nature) of the strength of men and women.

Again, this is where it all falls apart. Based on this reasoning, we should create laws that dictate only men can be construction workers. After all, there was precedent for thousands of years. Men worked construction, women did not. Men, in principle, are stronger than women and the "average" man is more capable of doing the job, despite there being women out there stronger than that man.

Can you not see why laws should not be based on this line of reasoning?

drjim
05-16-2013, 04:12 PM
1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the boding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

There's an argument in standard form. Granted, it does utilize necessary and sufficient conditions.

I take 1-5 from Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea." I agree. I don't care what kind of sex you like.

If nothing else, this is instructive as to why marriage should not be re/undefined. The relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals are distinctly different. Therefore, the same word "marriage" does not fittingly apply to both circumstances, purposes and outcomes. Therefore, a different word should be used even in the case that society wants to disregard the substantial merits of the argument (that society has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and not homosexual unions) -- but says, whatever, it's about fairness. It's a distinction with a difference, deserving its own word.

There is no appeal to religion, ickiness, nor arbitrary definition (1-5) in the forgoing, so can we please stop with the red herrings, staw men and ad hominem... of course not, that's why it such a joy to post here.

Furthermore, you might agree with the argument above but say so what, marriage is good, and while society has no interest in encouraging and supporting homosexual unions, adopted kids by homosexuals in a committed marriage-like relationship can fulfill 1-5 pretty well. I wound't disagree that some can, but in principle (there I go again), and principle is what we base laws on, children with two moms or two dads obviously are deprived of a mother or father, necessarily. Proponents of Homosexual "marriage" must then claim that neither a mother or father is essential to the raising of children. Both claims are implicit, if not explicit: 1) Fathers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a father has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second female parent, and 2) Mothers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a mother has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second father.

Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.

Even if I grant that all of this is true, why would we as a society allow heterosexual marriages, complete with all benefits mentioned throughout, when one (or both) of the individuals are sterile or otherwise unable to produce children? How would those marriages be any different than a homosexual marriage?

I am quite sympathetic to many of the arguments you make here, particularly points 1-5. Luckily homosexual marriage does nothing to render these invalid.

I am also quite sympathetic to the preference of a child being raised by a father and mother. Unfortunately the reality of our society today does not allow that to always be the case. This was true before homosexual marriage or adoption were allowed.

biggentleben
05-16-2013, 04:49 PM
Male-female defined every definition of marriage throughout secular history.


Debate of these issues took place during the time of Christ. Not exactly treading new moral ground here.

Marriage was not the standard in many cultures of what constituted a long-term relationship. That's where defining marriage is questionable.

Many debates took place, sure, but the stance of the church body on issues has drastically changed. To not see/admit this is simply ignoring facts.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 05:02 PM
Again, this is where it all falls apart. Based on this reasoning, we should create laws that dictate only men can be construction workers. After all, there was precedent for thousands of years. Men worked construction, women did not. Men, in principle, are stronger than women and the "average" man is more capable of doing the job, despite there being women out there stronger than that man.

Can you not see why laws should not be based on this line of reasoning?

Why would this logically follow?

Can women do construction? Yes
Can men do construction? Yes

Can homosexuals have a child? No
Can heterosexuals have a child. Yes

But more to the REAL point of this bad analogy -- Does society have an interest in men being construction workers and not women -- No.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 05:10 PM
Are some of you really advocating we base our laws on sentiment and whims, even moral relativism -- unprincipled laws and in application? That's tryanny.

I don't even know what making laws based on reality (the world as we find it today) would mean if that's the sole criterium. The reality is that not all people pay there taxes, therefore there should be no law requiring people to pay taxes?

Murder exists. So what? What follows from that reality? Nothing. The principle of life is used in law to legislate the moral norm that murder is wrong.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 05:12 PM
I'll help you with an example.

Your purpose: to keep marriage to "traditional" only
My purpose: (in honor of the site) To qualify baseball as the only "true sport"

1. In order for fans to enjoy themselves most completely they must follow a "true" sport. A true sport being only that which fosters the complete challenging of the athletes who participate by having them challenged in the following ways:
2. Challenged by using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball
3. Challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent
4. Include running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, scooping
5. Challenged in that they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more
6. Must be played with less than 10 players on either team, on the field, at any given time to maximize athlete importance.
7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only "true sport" by which fans enjoy themselves most completely.

Now you perhaps may highlight some small part of this and say "nuh uh...this sports does too!" In which case I'd just amend my argument to wedge that one out too.

When you get to nitpick your premises and hide them in circularity, it's easy to make any argument SEEM necessary and "principled" - but it's really just a mess of convenient BS you've strung together in fancy language to mask the flaws.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 05:19 PM
Here's one: your marriage and parental responsibilities are not weakened, or strengthened, based on whether or not two other people get married.

SSM won't create more gay people. It won't result in more heterosexual marriage divorce, or less.

Everything in your post supposes all the above. Stronger heterosexual marriages would be a good thing for this nation. Work on that, rather than working on preventing SSM. One will actually do some good.

I don't have to suppose any of that actually, and don't (with regard to the argument above).

In one case, society has an interest and not in the other. I do in fact think there is utility to laws beyond the laws themselves (not all laws), so I'm not making any claim to whether homosexual "marriage" would cheapen or deteriorate the institution of marriage. My argument above doesn't touch this. Though I do think that when society sends the message that you can get form two moms whatever you could have gotten from a mom and dad, yes... there are real consequences of this attitude becoming a norm... I'm not arguing that it will happen, but there is concern that the shaking bonds of heterosexual marriage be further loosened.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 05:53 PM
I'll help you with an example.


1. In order for fans to enjoy themselves most completely they must follow a "true" sport. A true sport being only that which fosters the complete challenging of the athletes who participate by having them challenged in the following ways:
2. Challenged by using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball
3. Challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent
4. Include running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, scooping
5. Challenged in that they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more
6. Must be played with less than 10 players on either team, on the field, at any given time to maximize athlete importance.
7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only "true sport" by which fans enjoy themselves most completely.



Thanks for the help.

1. False

Done.

Argument is valid but not sound.

THAT IS IF THIS WERE AN ARGUMENT AT ALL.

It's not. And you continue to reveal how little you know about logic.

When you put an argument into standard form (meaning no longer in paragraphs, but point by point with a series of premises leading to a conclusion) each premise must be written as a statement such that it can be true or false.

None of 2-6 of your 'argument' is a statement that can be either true or false and therefore cannot be evaluated, therefore it's not an argument. It is an explanation of sorts. You didn't look this distinction up I see. Sorry to be so flippant, but I really tire of the poor quality of rebuttals, and all the more annoyed that out of the gate I've been called either directly or indirectly on these threads: pretentious, unconscionable, bigoted, homophobe and that only scratches the surface -- all the while I do have an expertise at this. That doesn't in and of itself make me right, but when people hopelessly can't understand and not even try to understand something that might help them in other arguments (maybe even one's we'll agree on), and act as though they were above these arguments, adjudicating from above with derisive comments to follow, it is insufferable. Horribly so.

Diatribe over, but I won't be commenting much further because this has eroded into mush (the responses I get anyway, save Chief maybe), but will show you why mine IS an argument. And the proper way to contest someone's argument is to show why one of the premises is false.

1. In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

Every premise is written as to be either true or false.

If you think a premise is false, say why. It's just that simple folks.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 06:01 PM
Thanks for the help.



1. In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.



I'll critique my own argument just to show how it's done.

#3 read: In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster the bonding between men and children.

This seems to be true at first glance, but have tradition gender roles been such that the brunt of parenting was on the mother already, so the need for any significant amount of bonding is largely mitigated if the mother is around? Might it also be good for society that men not bond with their boys that the young boys adopt from their mother a more effeminate persona, that may result in less violence?

Something like that would work and be civil...

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 06:17 PM
Something like that would work and be civil...

You mean like I did earlier when I called your premises dubious and you hid behind the definition you claim had been unchanged since before the dawn of time?

We've already been there! You were the one that decided that wasn't a fair place to play. Now you want back? I called out your notion about male bonding with children and with transforming young adults sexually.

Both of which you didn't respond to. So, this is already happening, you just only choose to engage certain issues and keep going back to the same refrains to duck ones where you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the help.

This is, of course, my fault. In the efforts to expedite things I hoped you'd see the forest for the trees. After letting Alan Keyes speak for you for three pages, I should've known better.

1. Fans only enjoy themselves at a true sport defined as that which challenges athletes.
2. Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball
3. Athletes are only challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent
4. Athletes are only challenged when they must do running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, and scooping during play of the game
5. Athletes are only challenged if they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more
6. Athletes are only challenged if they have less than 9 teammates actively playing with them.
7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only sport qualified to be a "true sport". Therefore fans only enjoy themselves watching baseball.

Now, of course these premises can be challenged. But I've been challenging your premises for four pages and you keep running behind the "principle" of your definition. Which is circular. Shall I quote you earlier about your unwillingness to accept the premises of your argument could be challenged? (This was, of course, while Alan Keyes was still doing your talking for you and no such premises had been listed in particular. But I look back now and was pretty damn close!)

I'm still waiting to hear how some of those premises are rectified with your earlier claims about the definition's consistency since pre-recordded time. And, of course, that empirical evidence you claimed.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 08:17 PM
I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly boys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.

drjim
05-16-2013, 08:56 PM
I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly b
oys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.

This will hardly be the first generation without a strong male presence nor the first children of gay couples. I guarantee on balance children of gay couples will be better off than single parents.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 09:31 PM
This is, of course, my fault. In the efforts to expedite things I hoped you'd see the forest for the trees. After letting Alan Keyes speak for you for three pages, I should've known better.

1. Fans only enjoy themselves at a true sport defined as that which challenges athletes.
2. Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball
3. Athletes are only challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent
4. Athletes are only challenged when they must do running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, and scooping during play of the game
5. Athletes are only challenged if they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more
6. Athletes are only challenged if they have less than 9 teammates actively playing with them.
7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only sport qualified to be a "true sport". Therefore fans only enjoy themselves watching baseball.

Now, of course these premises can be challenged. But I've been challenging your premises for four pages and you keep running behind the "principle" of your definition. Which is circular. Shall I quote you earlier about your unwillingness to accept the premises of your argument could be challenged? (This was, of course, while Alan Keyes was still doing your talking for you and no such premises had been listed in particular. But I look back now and was pretty damn close!)

I'm still waiting to hear how some of those premises are rectified with your earlier claims about the definition's consistency since pre-recordded time. And, of course, that empirical evidence you claimed.

The way you've written every premise is awkward and false.

Take #2:

True or false: Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball.

This is false, athletes are challenged in football as well.

Every premise is false.

Why do you get so hung up on unimportant things, like marriage pre-dates religion, which it does. You keep bringing this ancillary item up because you think you've got something, but not really sure what.

At least in western civilization, of which we are a part, the institution of marriage as one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of society and western civilization for over 4000. And while there may have been factions that supported other kinds of marriages and experimented with the institution much in the same way we are experimenting with it today, it was so negligible as to not mention. This is not controversial, and the argument doesn't rely on it. But here's the thing, not everything I've written to date has been nor needs to be directly of use in the particular argument I posted. There are many arguments why marriage should be left alone -- pointed out that it has been around a real long time and no one was offended with it until 10 years ago is a pretty good reason, to me at least, that we ought not hastily overthrow the oldest institution in western civilization. I hope this is clear so you stop.

The other thing you keep saying, again as if you've got me, is that I originally stated marriage was about procreation. Yes, I did. And the argument I posted in standard form, this is essential. I'm still arguing and supporting this notion.

What is it still with the phrase "in principle' that you don't understand? I've used in the same way the Keyes was using it, and was the reason why I posted the video. If you don't understand it now, I can't help you.

PseudoSABR
05-16-2013, 09:36 PM
I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly boys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 09:42 PM
The way you've written every premise is awkward and false.

Well, yeah. Baseball is swell, but that's not my point. The point was to show I can form a similar argument and then argue that the "principle" of the definition was accurate. My argument has as much "principle" to the definition as yours does. Your premises are more believable, but nonetheless dubious. So you have dubious premises - that's where the discussion is. This "principle" conversation is circular ridiculousness - can it be done now?


Why do you get so hung up on unimportant things, like marriage pre-dates religion, which it does. You keep bringing this ancillary item up because you think you've got something, but not really sure what.

When did I say it predates religion? It predates males having a strong parental role and it damn sure predates developing teenagers into sexual adults.


At least in western civilization

You forgot that premise apparently? Just as a very basic problem, western civilization hasn't even existed for anything close to 4000 years. We can just start there and the problems only get worse. As I said - dubious.


The other thing you keep saying, again as if you've got me, is that I originally stated marriage was about procreation. Yes, I did. And the argument I posted in standard form, this is essential. I'm still arguing and supporting this notion.

The "gotcha" is that you continue to use that definition and appeal to it even though your premises are very dubious that the definition rests on. So you keep resting on the definition to prove the definition. (circularity for the win!!!!!) I'll repeat it again - your argument of the "principle" of your definition is only good insofar the premises are.

So, if you're ready to get back to where I was 4 pages ago before you detoured us - your premises are dubious.

Also - still waiting on that empirical evidence. I'd honestly like to see it. If you have the smoking gun of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting success, don't keep the world waiting man!

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 09:44 PM
Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...

Since Homosexual marriage is very new, and adoptions to homosexuals even newer, there is not a great deal of research yet. What is plentiful is the research on the importance of having a mother and a father. So by inference....

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 09:58 PM
Since Homosexual marriage is very new, and adoptions to homosexuals even newer, there is not a great deal of research yet. What is plentiful is the research on the importance of having a mother and a father. So by inference....

Oh...the inference that two people is better than none or one? Well yeah.

As for comparisons to two adults that are both women or men, no such inference can be made. I honestly don't believe the data exists to even compare man/woman parenting vs. man/man or woman/woman. Yet I've been recently told such empirical evidence exists. Please, quit holding out.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:01 PM
So you keep resting on the definition to prove the definition.

Marriage is between and man and woman, therefore marriage is between a man and woman.

You keep saying that I'm doing this, but clearing I haven't


I'll repeat it again - your argument of the "principle" of your definition is only good insofar the premises are.

I have no idea what this means so surely it adds to the confusion.

If you are saying that the reason I support leaving marriage alone as one man one women is because of the reasons I've given (the premises), then yes. That's generally how arguments work.

Forget the word "principle" if it's so troublesome.

I have nothing left to add. Clearly no minds have changed and you only care about ancillary minutiae at this point. You either accept my argument or you don't. I could give plenty others, but why waste my time - and yours.

I just wanted to let those who read but don't post (because of our conservative nature), that we are out here. We are not bigots or homophobes and anyone who says so deserves to be challenged and ridiculed.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:07 PM
Oh...the inference that two people is better than none or one? Well yeah.

As for comparisons to two adults that are both women or men, no such inference can be made. I honestly don't believe the data exists to even compare man/woman parenting vs. man/man or woman/woman. Yet I've been recently told such empirical evidence exists. Please, quit holding out.
You must not read well. I included a modicum of evidence several pages ago, but here you go, I'm sure you'll read it all tonight in the spirit of education yourself -- that is why you insist on producing it, right?
Single Parent Statistics


Births to unmarried women constituted 36 percent of all births in 2004, reaching a record high of nearly 1.5 million births. Over half of births to women in their early twenties and nearly 30 percent of births to women ages 25-29 were to unmarried women"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov (http://www.childstats.gov/)
Along with the number of births to unmarried women, the birth rate for unmarried women rose in 2004. The 2004 rate of 46 births per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15-44 matches the historic high reported a decade earlier, in 1994"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov (http://www.childstats.gov/)
Between 1980 and 1994, the birth rate for unmarried women ages 15-44 increased from 29 to 46 per 1,000. Between 1995 and 2003, the rate has fluctuated little, ranging from 43 to 45 per1,000"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov (http://www.childstats.gov/)
In 1995, nearly six of 10 children living with mothers only were near the poverty line. About 45 percent of children raised by divorced mothers and 69 percent by never-married mothers lived in or near poverty, which was $13,003 for a family of three in 1998.Census Brief CENBR/97-1, Bureau of the Census www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov/), September 1997.
75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.(Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children.(Children's Defense Fund)
63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families(FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)
75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes(Children in need: Investment Strategies...Committee for Economic Development)









63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.



90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.



85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)



80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)



71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)


Father Factor in Education - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.



Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.



Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.



Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.



75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.


Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse - Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)



85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)




Do you require more? Would it make a difference for you? No. On to the next marginal point to belabor confusedly.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 10:11 PM
This will hardly be the first generation without a strong male presence nor the first children of gay couples. I guarantee on balance children of gay couples will be better off than single parents.
I would hope any couple, SSM or hetero, would fare better than your average single mom just by virtue of having 2 incomes. What I am more concerned with is how kids of gay parents fare compared to kids of hetero parents. There is not the same robustness of data and social science.

I don't have any religious or moral arguments against gay marriage but I would like to hear just one proponent admit that what we are doing here as a society by bestowing the legal benefits of marriage on gays and further encouraging them to form families is, we're valuing gay rights over social science and putting a new generation of gay-family kids in a certain degree of risk.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:12 PM
Do you require more? Would it make a difference for you? No. On to the next marginal point to belabor confusedly.

Yes, irrelevant evidence to the conversation leaves me wanting more relevant evidence. Guilty as charged. Got any of that relevant stuff buried somewhere?

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:20 PM
You keep saying that I'm doing this, but clearing I haven't

You're correct, you aren't doing it explicitly. You're just wrapping it in jargon. Now, maybe you lost your own circularity in the jargon, many brilliant minds have done that. I'm just hoping now that it's out there, you please stop doing it.


If you are saying that the reason I support leaving marriage alone as one man one women is because of the reasons I've given (the premises), then yes. That's generally how arguments work.

So when I addressed the premises, why did you immediately change the subject back to your definition? Again, I was ready four pages ago. The strength or weakness of your argument rests on premises yet you did everything you could for several posts to avoid that discussion.

For instance, I don't deny that in the future we find out that gay marriage/gay parenting is very harmful to children. That is a possibility. In which case I would promptly oppose gay marriage. But we have no relevant data to suggest this is true. Not by inference or anything else. There simply is no data to compare. All we have to compare to right now is single or no-parent situations. The far stronger inference is that a two parent household (regardless of gender) is likely stronger than a one or no-parent situation. So I defer to the real benefit now of that being the likely case, but I don't deny it potentially turning out to be false down the line.

And while you have tried the "woe is me" card a few times, no one has criticized you as a bigot. You're being criticized for fallacious arguments and a tendency to resist defending your premises. I've done so in a multitude of civil ways - any snark or biting comments are out of frustration for your unwillingness to engage them in favor of circular arguments, fallacies, or most recently - irrelevant data or by resisting posting your own thoughts and leaving nothing but a rambling mess to speak for you.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 10:24 PM
Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

Then what?

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:25 PM
we're valuing gay rights over social science and putting a new generation of gay-family kids in a certain degree of risk.

I can agree to the second part. I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage. But yes, there is a degree of risk they'll be worse parents than single or no-parent households. I just don't think that risk is particularly high. If they are worse than a hetero parent household, that would make for a difficult future discussion for me in continuing to advocate SSM. But again, I think that risk is extremely low.

To answer your very interesting second question, for me it would depends on which of the two ends they are closer to. If it's statistically in the middle, I'd find that acceptable because many kids who would be in the homosexual household would have had only a single parent or less.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:28 PM
1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish all of 1-5
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.


For the last time, point out the circularity or stop.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 10:29 PM
If it's statistically in the middle, I'd find that acceptable because many kids who would be in the homosexual household would have had only a single parent or less.
Or they would not have existed at all.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:30 PM
Or they would not have existed at all.

Correct, but I don't rule out the possibility that they are so god-awful that no parents would be better. I just find it extremely low.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:32 PM
Levi said: "I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage."

So we ought to experiment with marriage and childrearing that we can study it?

"We've got to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." - N. Pelosi

Couldn't resist.

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 10:38 PM
Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...
Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:41 PM
Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

Bingo

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:43 PM
For the last time, point out the circularity or stop.[/COLOR]

That argument has dubious premises. Your definition is built on these premises. So, when I attack your premises, you don't get to cite the definition. You've yet to engage on any of the attempts I've made to undermine your premises. Such as the following litany of errors:

1. Men and women don't need to bond to procreate. Hell, at this point they don't even have to be in the same country. A sperm bank and a few procedures and you're good to go. No bonding necessary.
3. You've stated this argument has existed since "time immemorial" and yet, male bonding in the child rearing process is a recent development. They didn't even train their children in future trades for many centuries before now much less parent. And this is saying nothing for your dubious notions of the definition being static and unchanging and your insistence on only using Western Culture. (Which, not incidentally, has not existed for anywhere close to 4000 years)
4. Why not have two men parent rather than a man/woman?
5. Most women were sold off the second they "flowered" - transformations of adolescents is probably more rare then male bonding. We sold off women at 13, so how that part of your definition has existed since "time immemorial" is more than a bit dubious.
6. A polygamous relationship accomplishes all of these things. One could argue with reproductive rates it causes far more survival odds. Gay marriage offers all of these things save the "birth" aspect. Especially since the rejection of premise 1 is very much true.

And that's not even including your laughable claim that marriage law dictates obligations to progeny!

Now, provided you don't go back to appealing to any "principle" of the definition - we have no circularity! Huzzah....discussion of premises! This is so much easier when you A) actually lay them out and B) stop appealing to your own definition when your premise crumbles.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:46 PM
Levi said: "I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage.

Well...it's not. We can't compare what we don't have information on. But since most children adopted and raised in gay households would have poor parenting (here is where your stats do apply), it's a worthy gamble. Worst case: these kids continue to have no parent and change to having two bad parents. Best case: LOTS of kids have good parents.

Gamble = worth it.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 10:47 PM
Correct, but I don't rule out the possibility that they are so god-awful that no parents would be better. I just find it extremely low.

Care to put a wager on that? I'll give 2:1 odds that kids of lesbians turn out to be even fatter than kids of heteros, and also worse at math. A whole new generation of David Sedaris walk-reading bookworms coming our way, I recon. Can't wait!

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:47 PM
Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

If that happens, I'll be right by your side in the argument. That's the beauty of reason, it doesn't have to bend to whims or convenience. It resists them both in fact.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Care to put a wager on that? I'll give 2:1 odds that kids of lesbians turn out to be even fatter than kids of heteros, and also worse at math. A whole new generation of David Sedarkis walk-reading bookworms coming our way, I recon. Can't wait!

I chuckled, not sure if you're serious or not...but either way I chuckled!

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 11:03 PM
If that happens, I'll be right by your side in the argument. That's the beauty of reason, it doesn't have to bend to whims or convenience. It resists them both in fact.
I don’t doubt you, but reason will not be invited to the table. Think of those Catholic adoption agencies that were closed rather than permitted to favor male-female couples. Equality, not welfare of the kids, was the primary value. No reason to believe equality would not continue to reign supreme regardless of what may come from same-sex couple child rearing.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 11:06 PM
I don’t doubt you, but reason will not be invited to the table. Think of those Catholic adoption agencies that were closed rather than permitted to favor male-female couples. Equality, not welfare of the kids, was the primary value. No reason to believe equality would not continue to reign supreme regardless of what may come from same-sex couple child rearing.

You may be right. But no one here is arguing that. What the future brings as far as the outcome of homosexual parenting is a bridge we can cross when we come to it. Though, personally, I don't see equality as a bad thing in and of itself. In this situation or any other.

Willihammer
05-16-2013, 11:07 PM
I chuckled, not sure if you're serious or not...but either way I chuckled!

Wait till I get to the punchline!

Somewhere there is a 4 year old girl with two lesbian moms running around (or more likely, walking slowly with her head down), and yours truly is the sperm donor who made her lukewarm existence possible.

biggentleben
05-16-2013, 11:19 PM
Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

You've gone off the reservation before. This puts Pine Ridge way in the rearview!

Hornhead
05-16-2013, 11:23 PM
You may be right. But no one here is arguing that. What the future brings as far as the outcome of homosexual parenting is a bridge we can cross when we come to it. Though, personally, I don't see equality as a bad thing in and of itself. In this situation or any other.
I say now with confidence there will be no turning back once that bridge is crossed. Common sense tells me a mother and father is the ideal. Some studies will support me and others won't. People will believe what they want and folks that point to studies (no matter how true) showing same-sex child rearing as inferior will be shouted down as homophobic. Serious debate will be quashed just as it is becoming with same-sex marriage.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 11:34 PM
I'll reply in red, I hope this shows up.




1. Men and women don't need to bond to procreate. Hell, at this point they don't even have to be in the same country. A sperm bank and a few procedures and you're good to go. No bonding necessary.

Never said they do need to bond to procreate. If you read the premise correctly, which I see is going to be a big problem here an at large in this whole thread, you'll read #1 says

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.

The conditional (In order for a culture to survive and thrive) is really really important, in English and right at the beginning. Moving on.

3. You've stated this argument has existed since "time immemorial" and yet, male bonding in the child rearing process is a recent development. They didn't even train their children in future trades for many centuries before now much less parent. And this is saying nothing for your dubious notions of the definition being static and unchanging and your insistence on only using Western Culture. (Which, not incidentally, has not existed for anywhere close to 4000 years)

I just. wrote. about. this. I never said "this argument has existed...." but the institution of marriage as one man one woman has existed since time immemorial, which is true. In the past, there were bad parenting and lack of bonding of men to children. Okay. Were those cultures better for it? I don't think so.

This premise you challenge says:
3. In order for a culture to survive and thrive it must foster the bonding between men and children.

I just provided you with the research showing that with fathers don't bond with their children, all sorts of ills befall the child and society.



4. Why not have two men parent rather than a man/woman?
This doesn't show anything about #4, true or false. What's your point relative to this premise?

5. Most women were sold off the second they "flowered" - transformations of adolescents is probably more rare then male bonding. We sold off women at 13, so how that part of your definition has existed since "time immemorial" is more than a bit dubious.

Focus on the premise itself, please. That women were "sold" off doesn't affect the truth of the premies and has nothing to do with being from the beginning. However regretful the "selling" of daughters was/is, has no import on marriage itself, that it's been around for thousands of years, and especially nothing to do with the premise.

6. A polygamous relationship accomplishes all of these things. One could argue with reproductive rates it causes far more survival odds. Gay marriage offers all of these things save the "birth" aspect. Especially since the rejection of premise 1 is very much true.

The conclusion of 1-5 is 6, which is:

6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.

This is the best objection you raise. Polygamy certainly meets some of the criteria, but contend that 3-5 are questionable with regard to polygamy. And as we know, both boys and girls are mistreated. Even in the case where consenting adults enter into this relationship, if these relationships increase in number the boys are throw out of the community -- to reduce competition with the patriarchs, hardly good bonding, parenting and hardly a compelling societal interest.

And that's not even including your laughable claim that marriage law dictates obligations to progeny!

Never have I said this. Nor was it part of this argument. Though for cultures to survive, yeah.... some population must be replaced, so we do have a moral obligation to reproduce IMO, though not a legal obligation.

Now, provided you don't go back to appealing to any "principle" of the definition - we have no circularity! Huzzah....discussion of premises! This is so much easier when you A) actually lay them out and B) stop appealing to your own definition when your premise crumbles.

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 11:52 PM
I just. wrote. about. this. I never said "this argument has existed...." but the institution of marriage as one man one woman has existed since time immemorial,

Then "traditional marriage", as you have so defined it, didn't existi as far back as you have repeatedly claimed. So why the distinction? In fact, I'd argue your definition is incredibly infantile in western culture to keep using phrases like that.


which is true. In the past, there were bad parenting and lack of bonding of men to children. Okay. Were those cultures better for it? I don't think so.

Well, you don't think so or you know it wasn't? Since at least two of your 4 relevant premises are so recent, why such resistance to another change? Hell, one could argue men taking a more prominent parenting role in the last 100-200 years was every bit as risky to some as gay marriage is to you now


This doesn't show anything about #4, true or false. What's your point relative to this premise?

If it's true that masculine identity is essential, why not double it up? Explaining your reasoning to your premise is helpful.


has no import on marriage itself, that it's been around for thousands of years, and especially nothing to do with the premise.

Um, if your premise wasn't happening for thousands of years, it's relevant. Marriages weren't helping transform healthy sexual adults for thousands of years because they were selling them off, giving them away, etc. the moment they became sexualized. It was never part of marriage and yet you are using it as a premise. And I would argue you're using it as a premise to conveniently further your agenda, not because it has any true value or relevance to marriage.


This is the best objection you raise. Polygamy certainly meets some of the criteria, but contend that 3-5 are questionable with regard to polygamy. And as we know, both boys and girls are mistreated. Even in the case where consenting adults enter into this relationship, if these relationships increase in number the boys are throw out of the community -- to reduce competition with the patriarchs, hardly good bonding, parenting and hardly a compelling societal interest.

None of this defeats my charge. You have presented nothing here that indicates polygamy is any more questionable than your average heterosexual marriage. Any threat that exists in polygamy, exists in heterosexual marriages. In fact, there are far higher divorce rates in average heterosexual marriages, making their ability to meet 2-3 perhaps MORE dubious than polygamous ones. Your further points are just speculation. Whose to say there wouldn't be situations in which one woman would marry multiple men? In fact, reverse polygamy is probably more ideal than traditional marriage according to your criteria.


Never have I said this.

You said marriage dictates progeny obligations. It does not. At all.

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 12:01 AM
Now that you've had a chance to critique the argument and my rejoinders, I'm very glad that circular reasoning was never charged. At last. Progress.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 12:03 AM
Now that you've had a chance to critique the argument and my rejoinders, I'm very glad that circular reasoning was never charged. At last. Progress.

Well, that's easy to stop doing it when you stop posting it. If anything, the real fault is the three pages it took for you to make YOUR points and not rely on Keys' circular rant.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 07:02 AM
None of this defeats my charge. You have presented nothing here that indicates polygamy is any more questionable than your average heterosexual marriage. Any threat that exists in polygamy, exists in heterosexual marriages. In fact, there are far higher divorce rates in average heterosexual marriages, making their ability to meet 2-3 perhaps MORE dubious than polygamous ones. Your further points are just speculation. Whose to say there wouldn't be situations in which one woman would marry multiple men? In fact, reverse polygamy is probably more ideal than traditional marriage according to your criteria.

I just realized...none of this is necessary. You have already rejected such charges when dealing with the infertile or elderly. There is nothing that gets you out of the box that polygamy "can" (using your term in your manner) offer all of those conditions. Incestuous couples "can" too (though you might be able to wiggle out of that just a bit)

So, with that argument thoroughly in a box, I happily welcome you to the group of us saying we don't have to stick with just "traditional marriage" anymore! I argue we allow SSM, you argue for polygamy....tomato, tom(ah)to in this club!

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 07:40 AM
I just realized...none of this is necessary. You have already rejected such charges when dealing with the infertile or elderly. There is nothing that gets you out of the box that polygamy "can" (using your term in your manner) offer all of those conditions. Incestuous couples "can" too (though you might be able to wiggle out of that just a bit)

So, with that argument thoroughly in a box, I happily welcome you to the group of us saying we don't have to stick with just "traditional marriage" anymore! I argue we allow SSM, you argue for polygamy....tomato, tom(ah)to in this club!

Since your aren't aware, I'll tell you that there are plenty of arguments against polygamy too. And I already noted that 3-5 aren't well met if a culture were polygamous.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 07:55 AM
Since your aren't aware, I'll tell you that there are plenty of arguments against polygamy too. And I already noted that 3-5 aren't well met if a culture were polygamous.

"Arent well met" is as irrelevant as it was when the challenge of infertile couples was laid on you. I believe you said the "principle" of the definition is that they "can" regardless of whether they actually do. You are using the same sorts of arguments you already said don't apply on "principle". Please don't play weasels games...either your argument is bunk or you have a logical retort.

mike wants wins
05-17-2013, 08:23 AM
Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

Then what?

We still let them be couples. After all, black children are worse off in this country than white children, would you stop black couples from having children?

USAFChief
05-17-2013, 08:49 AM
Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

Then what? I'd push for a constitutional amendment (or let the states handle it, one by one) outlawing single parenthood. Or at the least, denying single parents the same rights, privileges and benefits under the law as married people get.

After all, that's your argument against SSM, amiright?

Willihammer
05-17-2013, 10:39 AM
I accept reality that there is no stopping gays getting married nor do I care if they do. Its the procreating part that gives me pause. There's a new social bloc we're going to be creating after doing this. Gay-family kids, whom I suspect will fall on average, somewhere between children of single parents and children of hetero parents in terms of math scores / teen pregnancy rates / crime / average income / whatever.

If it turns out they skew towards the single mom end of the spectrum - I'm talking specifically about the kids born via sperm donor or foster mom (not adoptees), I think that would present a very tough scenario to work out of, especially after society collectively seems to be agreeing that gays have all the same rights - including productive ones, I assume, as heteros, despite the biological loopholes required in order for them to make families which could potentially be tightened or loosened with regulation / taxes / whatever.

Its a bit of putting the wagon before the ox I know. I'm just surprised that that possibility, however small, hasn't really been considered, particularly given what we know about the gaping differences between hetero family kids and single mom kids.

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 10:55 AM
"Arent well met" is as irrelevant as it was when the challenge of infertile couples was laid on you. I believe you said the "principle" of the definition is that they "can" regardless of whether they actually do. You are using the same sorts of arguments you already said don't apply on "principle". Please don't play weasels games...either your argument is bunk or you have a logical retort.

Go argue for polygamy then. I've already said that a culture of polygamy is not one that survives and thrives because it doesn't foster a healthy masculine identity, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults, and certainly doesn't foster the bonding of fathers to their boys -- it alienates them, they are in competition.

I want to point out that were spending a lot time nitpicking this one argument, but again, the onus is on you to argue why polygamy or SSM should be incentivized by society.

This is strategically nice to be on the offensive, I know. It makes it look like you have a stronger position if you discuss someone else's argument rather than shoring up you own.

Yes, both heterosexaul monogamy and polygamy are relationships that produce progeny in principle. I still don't think you know what "in principle" means so I'll say it another way.

Progeny is the natural consequence/end/goal/purpose -- the greek is 'telos' of heterosexual monogamy and polygamy.

Progeny is an impossible consequence/end/goal/purpose of homosexual relationships regardless of number.

The only principle guiding the acceptance (and approval I guess) of homosexual relationships as marriages can be love or fairness or something like that.

There are some who think we shouldn't look at essential differences, natural law, and argue from principles so who knows. I don't. I know you haven't said this Levi.

USAFChief
05-17-2013, 11:14 AM
The only principle guiding the acceptance (and approval I guess) of homosexual relationships as marriages can be love or fairness or something like that.

If this is all about principle, then it seems to me that "love or fairness or something like that" allows for the acceptance of heterosexual relationships as marriage when said relationship has no chance of progeny. Why draw the line at SSMs?

If this is all about progeny, what is the difference between allowing SSM's and allowing two 70 yr olds, male and female, to marry? Neither can produce children naturally.

mike wants wins
05-17-2013, 11:20 AM
That consideration has been considered ad nauseum wh......by many of those against it. "think of the children" type arguments were made here in MN and all over the country. In the end, this year at least, like most of the history of our nation, we decided to move toward more freedom and equality for all, not less. And for that, I'm pleased.

mike wants wins
05-17-2013, 11:22 AM
btw, for me, freedom to be white, christian, and hetero is not really freedom in the principled sense. Freedom only has meaning when we fight for the freedom of those that are different than us, not the same as us. It's easy to fight for people just like us, it's a lot harder to fight for people to be free to be different than us. That fight is the fight of the US, or what the US supposedly represents.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 11:33 AM
Go argue for polygamy then. I've already said that a culture of polygamy is not one that survives and thrives because it doesn't foster a healthy masculine identity, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults, and certainly doesn't foster the bonding of fathers to their boys -- it alienates them, they are in competition.

I'm done on this after this post. Your argument is boxed and you refuse to see it. It's boxed by your own arguments.

These are all your opinions of polygamy, they have nothing to do with the idea that polygamy (the marriage of more than two people) "can" do to fit your premise. None of what you stated proves that these are "impossible" for polygamist. The fact - the truth - is that it CAN do all of those things. You cannot prove it false. Not to mention you are presupposing polygamy is only a male with a harem, I've never said anything about that. Your definition, as stated, is not "false" for polygamy. Not any moreso than it would be for hetero couples that can't get pregnant or the elderly. You made the terms about "can" they do this so that homosexuals would fail a few of them.

In your words - you defined it as such to make some of your definition was "impossible" for homosexual couples. Strictly (truthfully) speaking - none of those conditions are "impossible" for a polygamist marriage.

Well, polygamists don't fail your premises. They "can", it is not "impossible" - your argument fails to exclude them. So either you accept the consequences of your argument or you amend it. There is no wiggle out.

And this is far from nitpicking - this is taking your argument and applying it. I'm undermining your intentions with it to show that this argument is only crafted to suppress gay marriage. (If you remember, you threw the same gauntlet at Brock) If you had a principled argument, you'd accept the consequences - which include polygamy being worthy of fostering.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 12:23 PM
Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own.

Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 03:30 PM
Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own.

Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.

Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible. I hope Chief reads this when he says that maybe we shouldn't allow two 70 year olds to marry. Fair question but I've answered this so many times I don't know what else to say. Age is accidental to one's nature. Some 30 year olds are infertile. 70 year old women can no longer bear children. "In principle" kinda means what is the case "generally" -- I purposely don't use this word though, because in principle is stronger but maybe that will help.

You see, it's not just that most, any or a few homosexual relationships can never end in procreation. It's all.

Horribly, some babies are born with mental disabilities. The fact that some humans are mentally disabled does not change the nature of man as a rational animal. Man is, in principle, a rational animal. Marriage as one man one women is, in principle, a union that begets children. Unions of one man to one man are, in principle, unions precluding procreation.

Now that I think about it, using the word "unique" is better, and definitely better than "in general" which connotes likelihood and empircal counting to see what's the case. So scrub that.

Moving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I agree its at least arguable, where the simple fact of procreation or not is a physical impossibility. I agreed that some homosexual couples may very well out-parent single and some heterosexual parents. Great. We don't, at least I don't, argue from accidents and exceptions.

Ok, I'm bored.


It passes your argument with flying colors

Fly those colors brother.

Ncgo4
05-17-2013, 03:59 PM
Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!

I marry a figment of my imagination every time my wife travels. Fortunately, try as I might, this never includes procreation.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 04:07 PM
Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible.

And there it is - you picked procreation specifically to push out the group you don't want to include. Your principle is to exclude SSM and you now back off your claims when push comes to shove. Not two posts ago you talked "impossibility" and now its about "mostly". That's embarrassing. Just say nothing. Its better than changing your argument to save face.


oving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I

The answer is yes. There is nothing about "a marriage between more than two people" that precludes any of your premises. There is nothing that is contrary to the nature of that. You were actually using that idea properly, but now you back off it when it doesn't work for your argument. How convenient.

You don't get to apply cultural tendencies - polygamy, definitionally, does not violate any premise in its nature. None. Thanks for playing though, if you hadn't been so pretentious about your own logical certainty I'd let it slide. BUt you chose the playing field, don't scurry and whine when your own game fails you.


Ok, I'm bored.

Wrong "b" word. Yours is four letters and ends in "eat". I'd quit too. (And that was intentionally rude. where I come from failed logic is failed logic. If you don't want to admit faulty premises, withdraw. Say you are going to rethink your position. Whatever.

But changing arguments? Pathetic)

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 04:54 PM
Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and say this thread has run its course.