176 replies to this topic

[TheLeviathan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 stop appealing to your own definition when your premise crumbles.

[TheLeviathan]

[QUOTE]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, [/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]Never have I said this[/QUOTE].

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

[Ultima Ratio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Willihammer]

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]

"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.

[mike wants wins]

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]

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]

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.

Edited by TheLeviathan, 17 May 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[TheLeviathan]

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]

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.

Edited by Ultima Ratio, 17 May 2013 - 02:35 PM.

[Ncgo4]

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]

[quote name='Ultima Ratio']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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[quote]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[/quote]

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.

[Quote]Ok, I'm bored.[/Quote]

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)

Edited by TheLeviathan, 17 May 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and say this thread has run its course.