@Vaclav,
Reguardless of how good/bad of a father your father actually was...he drastically influenced your life. You don't have to have great parents to turn out to be a good person...sometimes bad experiences lead to good lessons.
My overall point is that parents have an overwhelming effect on their child...both parents that is. Without both a mother and a father...you are lacking the intimate knowledge that you would have gained if you had both parents. This is why it is so sad to see single family homes. The same thing is true for Homosexual households.
@Vaclav,
Reguardless of how good/bad of a father your father actually was...he drastically influenced your life. You don't have to have great parents to turn out to be a good person...sometimes bad experiences lead to good lessons.
Just asking, how is this in any case relevant? Because being gay has nothing to do with being a bad parent.
That may be the belief of many...but thats not what this country was built on. It was built on Family Values.
While that may be true, those family values change. In the time of your founding fathers for example, the women had a rather different position than they have at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
My overall point is that parents have an overwhelming effect on their child...both parents that is. Without both a mother and a father...you are lacking the intimate knowledge that you would have gained if you had both parents. This is why it is so sad to see single family homes. The same thing is true for Homosexual households.
There are several cases in which this is not true. The parents do have a level of influence in a child's life, but that does not mean they are solely responsible either. If that was the case, then there would be no chance of a person clawing their way to the top from the bottom.
Also, by saying that people are lacking "intimate knowledge" by not being raised by a traditional marraige, then this country is screwed. There are just as many single parents, or divorced parents that raise fine children. You are flat making things up that the social sciences has disproven for decades.
You're making an equivolent argument as "Gay households raise gay children". It's just another falsehood spread by people as an excuse to not allow gay marriage.
@Vaclav,
Reguardless of how good/bad of a father your father actually was...he drastically influenced your life. You don't have to have great parents to turn out to be a good person...sometimes bad experiences lead to good lessons.
So is a bad father preferential to no father? Or how far along into 'bad' do you have to go before no father becomes preferential?
No they shouldn't. As I've explained multiple times, it's a deal that takes into consideration some percentage of non fertile couples taking the benefits because all those couples can still potentially have children.
But what about the homosexuals that would adopt? The ones that already have children? The ones that would have a child via in vitro and a surrogate mother? What you are saying isn't half as cut and dry as you are posing it to be.
No they shouldn't. As I've explained multiple times, it's a deal that takes into consideration some percentage of non fertile couples taking the benefits because all those couples can still potentially have children.
What about the very elderly? They certainly can't have children. Yet prohibiting them from marrying would certainly be considered unjust discrimination by age, even though it's functional discrimination.
Just because it's functional discrimination doesn't mean it's just.
@Vaclav,
Reguardless of how good/bad of a father your father actually was...he drastically influenced your life. You don't have to have great parents to turn out to be a good person...sometimes bad experiences lead to good lessons.
My overall point is that parents have an overwhelming effect on their child...both parents that is. Without both a mother and a father...you are lacking the intimate knowledge that you would have gained if you had both parents. This is why it is so sad to see single family homes. The same thing is true for Homosexual households.
Ideally, we'd all have seventeen different primary caregivers from varied and diverse backgrounds and walks of life, to give us constant attention and a well-rounded picture of humanity. But generally, we make do with one or two. Yes, two parents of different sexes are, ceteris paribus, better for the child's social education than two parents of the same sex. But that "ceteris paribus" masks a broad spectrum of other variables; a homosexual couple with two different racial, cultural, and/or economic backgrounds may well be more educational than two heterosexual upper-middle-class WASPs. And at the very least, two caregivers are better than one, or none; if single parents are capable of raising healthy, well-adjusted children, then surely homosexual couples must have a better chance than they.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So what's your point? They should be subjected to the same laws because while technically they can't have children, they can, on very rare occasions, "obtain" them via other ways? Well, when it becomes the norm we might talk about changing the deal.
So, because we're not all running out to adopt (More because the lack of a married status makes this prohibitive at best) or having a surrogate (Which can be cost prohibitive at best), those that DO, should be denied. And you act as though Gay fathers/mothers are rare. They aren't common, to be sure, but look up the Gay Fathers chapters. Further, has it occurred to you that such things are not the norm BECAUSE of a lack of sanction? And what about the Non-Child rearing benefits. The right to be declared next of kin, for example, for rights of inheritance in lack of a will. Or treated as family, should my partner fall ill, or is injured. As it stands, I would be treated as a simple friend, entitled to simple visiting hours, by the letter of the law. Again, you're posing this as far more cut and dry than it is.
Giga, it's really up to society whether or not they want to give rights to "special cases" I don't think society as a whole is ready to accept that. Just because a group of people feels alienated should you alienate a much LARGER group of people because you caved in? That's what this is about.
When society fully accepts homosexuality I think bans on marriages will be lifted. For now a lot of people don't accept homosexuality.
I can understand the other view of homosexuality serving no human purpose, but marriage doesn't really serve a human purpose either. =\ Homosexuality is a personal thing, marriage is a society thing...why are we mixing social views with personal views?
So people don't accept my relationship, and as such I should just sit back and wait until they do.
And the mixing of views comes in when society grants rights to one group, and flat out snubs another. I don't care if me getting married makes little Ellie Mae down the street uncomfortable. SHE is the one making it an issue. Not me. Who I marry is not her business. Period.
Ideally, we'd all have seventeen different primary caregivers from varied and diverse backgrounds and walks of life, to give us constant attention and a well-rounded picture of humanity. But generally, we make do with one or two. Yes, two parents of different sexes are, ceteris paribus, better for the child's social education than two parents of the same sex. But that "ceteris paribus" masks a broad spectrum of other variables; a homosexual couple with two different racial, cultural, and/or economic backgrounds may well be more educational than two heterosexual upper-middle-class WASPs. And at the very least, two caregivers are better than one, or none; if single parents are capable of raising healthy, well-adjusted children, then surely homosexual couples must have a better chance than they.
True...but it leads right back to my initial problem. Without both parents the child will be without the same intimate knowledge that a child in a normal family would have access to.
Quote from Rodyle »
Just asking, how is this in any case relevant? Because being gay has nothing to do with being a bad parent.
If you read the rest of the post you would catch the tie in.
So people don't accept my relationship, and as such I should just sit back and wait until they do.
And the mixing of views comes in when society grants rights to one group, and flat out snubs another. I don't care if me getting married makes little Ellie Mae down the street uncomfortable. SHE is the one making it an issue. Not me. Who I marry is not her business. Period.
It becomes her problem when you ask for the state to sanction your marriage. She's a member of the state and she has her say in the matter. This is why we get to vote.
Because homosexuality is not "normal" (I say this because it is not the default) alot of people in society won't agree. Now I think that people should be allowed to marry into the same sex...but I can completely understand why the state won't sanction it.
I'm still trying to figure out why a personal choice should be state sanctioned...
So why don't I get to vote as to whether I agree with her marital choice? What you are suggesting is tyranny of the majority. And sometimes the public NEEDS to be dragged into change. Had that not have occurred, there'd likely still be states with Anti-Miscegenation laws. Normal is irrelevant. We are citizens. We pay taxes. We are equal, and deserve to be seen as such.
Oops, I see you already covered this with your talk of blankets/exceptions.
The problem is that your litmus test of choice was chosen arbitrarily. Look when happens when I apply your excuses to banning the elderly from marrying:
"The norm is for two adult of childbearing age to have children. Thus the sole litmus test for marriage should be whether the two adults are of childbearing age. This deal takes into account that a certain amount of these couples can't or won't have children. Since it's such a wide blanket rule it has to assume there will be flukes. Notably elderly couples are not flukes. They naturally can't have children and, as such, can be covered by the, ahem, blanket rule."
See? It works that way too. It doesn't matter by what quality you discriminate -- whether it's by age of by gender, you can always phrase your deal in terms of general success and exceptional failure.
True...but it leads right back to my initial problem. Without both parents the child will be without the same intimate knowledge that a child in a normal family would have access to.
Unless someone can demonstrate that there is a gross social utility loss by allowing children to be raised by two people of the same gender, there is no sufficient justification for oppression.
Are you comparing race to personal choice? I hardly see how racism is the same as your choice of sexual partner.
Sometimes the public needs to be dragged into change? I hardly see how dragging the public into changes helps ADVANCE society at all. Just because the general view of society doesn't support your beliefs and feelings does not mean the government should force those beliefs onto the public.
The public has a right to argue against anything they believe to immoral, wrong, or injustice. That is democracy and I don't agree with what you are saying about gay marriage.
Tyranny of the majority? I'm sorry the majority does not accept that you want to get married to someone of the same sex. It IS unfair, but it is more unfair to say "too bad people, you're too dumb you don't get to vote on this matter."
Again, I agree with you about deserving the right to get married, but the views of society are much more important than people who have special needs.
Tyranny of the majority? I'm sorry the majority does not accept that you want to get married to someone of the same sex. It IS unfair, but it is more unfair to say "too bad people, you're too dumb you don't get to vote on this matter."
Democracy is generally late on granting minority rights.
It is not more unfair to say, "This is an issue of minority rights -- thus appeal to the majority probably doesn't make a lick of sense."
Democracy is generally late on granting minority rights.
It is not more unfair to say, "This is an issue of minority rights -- thus appeal to the majority probably doesn't make a lick of sense."
We are not a pure democracy, thank God.
That's true, and historically change did not come without much effort on the behalf of the minorities who wanted those rights.
You make a valid point sir. I guess it's more up to the gay guys/gals to show their side of the story to the government and get over the hurdles that stand in their way.
Sometimes the public needs to be dragged into change? I hardly see how dragging the public into changes helps ADVANCE society at all. Just because the general view of society doesn't support your beliefs and feelings does not mean the government should force those beliefs onto the public.
Letting society retain its stupid views isn't either. One way moves foreward in a positive and the other doesn't.
The public has a right to argue against anything they believe to immoral, wrong, or injustice. That is democracy and I don't agree with what you are saying about gay marriage.
Tyranny of the majority? I'm sorry the majority does not accept that you want to get married to someone of the same sex. It IS unfair, but it is more unfair to say "too bad people, you're too dumb you don't get to vote on this matter."
That isn't unfair. A right is never equal to an opinion. Ever.
Yes, homosexuality is a choice. I CHOSE to be a part of one of the most scorned groups on the planet. I CHOSE to live a life where I have to choose travel destinations carefully, or else I could fall victim to anti-sodomy laws, for something as simple as giving my partner a peck on the cheek. I CHOSE to live a life where I am seen as someone who is dirty, to be polite. I can never understand how anyone can suggest, with the stigma surrounding homosexuality that it is still seen as a choice. The only choice I have is to live a lie, marry a woman in a sham marriage to try and convince myself that I am not what I am. I did not choose to be gay. I chose to accept myself for what I am. And while you are free to disagree with my stance with gay marriage, you are hard pressed to show me how it is immoral, wrong or unjust for me to be able to marry my partner. You are equally hard pressed to prove to me how it's the rest of the public's business. It does not affect them. At all. Period.
And yes, I am comparing homosexuality to race in this case, because it fits almost flawlessly. As of Loving v. Virginia, 1967, there were 16 states that still held bans against interracial marriages. Go ask some of the interracial couples how sometimes being dragged into change is a bad thing. Tell the couples that were subsequently allowed to marry after that, that it was their choice in the first place, and they should have to abide by what the majority felt was right. Tell them that what the people felt about their relationship was more valid than what they felt.
True...but it leads right back to my initial problem. Without both parents the child will be without the same intimate knowledge that a child in a normal family would have access to.
But why stop at two? Because it's "normal"? That's (a) not an argument and (b) not even particularly true. Why not require polygamy, on the grounds that if two diverse caregivers are better for the child, three or more must be better still?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So all those elderly couples didn't have children because the all married when they were already octogenarian, right? You're strawmaning. Also because you stubbornly try to make it a "rule" that somehow has to apply in a casuistic way to all, when it's not a rule. But I already said that at least three times.
No, Stan's example is perfectly valid. A couple who meet and wish to get married beyond the age of (say) 65 are *just* as fitting for the phrasing of your rule.
But lets ignore that for a moment, because your basic premise is flawed.
If the purpose of the financial benefits of marriage is children (but not explicit), why would the government offer additional financial incentives explicitly for children?
The financial incentives for marriage are for a couple of reasons. One is married couples offer certainty and stability to society. The second is that someone in a long term relationship (married or otherwise, although marriage does tend to be longer term) tends to be healthier, on average, than someone who is not. (It's a not huge but statisticly significant difference, IIRC) This is of obvious benefit to society.
So all those elderly couples didn't have children because the all married when they were already octogenarian, right? You're strawmaning.
What?
I said the rule, equally justifiable by your "blanket/exception" argument, would be that elderly couples could not become married. As in, two elderly, single people decide to marry one another.
Obviously a kind of forced divorce rule would be strawmanning your position. I'm not doing that.
Reguardless of how good/bad of a father your father actually was...he drastically influenced your life. You don't have to have great parents to turn out to be a good person...sometimes bad experiences lead to good lessons.
My overall point is that parents have an overwhelming effect on their child...both parents that is. Without both a mother and a father...you are lacking the intimate knowledge that you would have gained if you had both parents. This is why it is so sad to see single family homes. The same thing is true for Homosexual households.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
Just asking, how is this in any case relevant? Because being gay has nothing to do with being a bad parent.
While that may be true, those family values change. In the time of your founding fathers for example, the women had a rather different position than they have at the moment.
There are several cases in which this is not true. The parents do have a level of influence in a child's life, but that does not mean they are solely responsible either. If that was the case, then there would be no chance of a person clawing their way to the top from the bottom.
Also, by saying that people are lacking "intimate knowledge" by not being raised by a traditional marraige, then this country is screwed. There are just as many single parents, or divorced parents that raise fine children. You are flat making things up that the social sciences has disproven for decades.
You're making an equivolent argument as "Gay households raise gay children". It's just another falsehood spread by people as an excuse to not allow gay marriage.
So is a bad father preferential to no father? Or how far along into 'bad' do you have to go before no father becomes preferential?
In my eyes, yes. If nothing else, it serves as a direct example of how not to act. A role model need not be good to set you on the right path.
But what about the homosexuals that would adopt? The ones that already have children? The ones that would have a child via in vitro and a surrogate mother? What you are saying isn't half as cut and dry as you are posing it to be.
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
What about the very elderly? They certainly can't have children. Yet prohibiting them from marrying would certainly be considered unjust discrimination by age, even though it's functional discrimination.
Just because it's functional discrimination doesn't mean it's just.
Marriage isn't a basic human right, where did you get that? Marriage is a mechanation of society and is not a human right.
Because it is a mechanation of society, society should be able to decide who that right belongs to. I think that's fair.
Ideally, we'd all have seventeen different primary caregivers from varied and diverse backgrounds and walks of life, to give us constant attention and a well-rounded picture of humanity. But generally, we make do with one or two. Yes, two parents of different sexes are, ceteris paribus, better for the child's social education than two parents of the same sex. But that "ceteris paribus" masks a broad spectrum of other variables; a homosexual couple with two different racial, cultural, and/or economic backgrounds may well be more educational than two heterosexual upper-middle-class WASPs. And at the very least, two caregivers are better than one, or none; if single parents are capable of raising healthy, well-adjusted children, then surely homosexual couples must have a better chance than they.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, because we're not all running out to adopt (More because the lack of a married status makes this prohibitive at best) or having a surrogate (Which can be cost prohibitive at best), those that DO, should be denied. And you act as though Gay fathers/mothers are rare. They aren't common, to be sure, but look up the Gay Fathers chapters. Further, has it occurred to you that such things are not the norm BECAUSE of a lack of sanction? And what about the Non-Child rearing benefits. The right to be declared next of kin, for example, for rights of inheritance in lack of a will. Or treated as family, should my partner fall ill, or is injured. As it stands, I would be treated as a simple friend, entitled to simple visiting hours, by the letter of the law. Again, you're posing this as far more cut and dry than it is.
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
When society fully accepts homosexuality I think bans on marriages will be lifted. For now a lot of people don't accept homosexuality.
I can understand the other view of homosexuality serving no human purpose, but marriage doesn't really serve a human purpose either. =\ Homosexuality is a personal thing, marriage is a society thing...why are we mixing social views with personal views?
And the mixing of views comes in when society grants rights to one group, and flat out snubs another. I don't care if me getting married makes little Ellie Mae down the street uncomfortable. SHE is the one making it an issue. Not me. Who I marry is not her business. Period.
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
If you read the rest of the post you would catch the tie in.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
It becomes her problem when you ask for the state to sanction your marriage. She's a member of the state and she has her say in the matter. This is why we get to vote.
Because homosexuality is not "normal" (I say this because it is not the default) alot of people in society won't agree. Now I think that people should be allowed to marry into the same sex...but I can completely understand why the state won't sanction it.
I'm still trying to figure out why a personal choice should be state sanctioned...
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
Oops, I see you already covered this with your talk of blankets/exceptions.
The problem is that your litmus test of choice was chosen arbitrarily. Look when happens when I apply your excuses to banning the elderly from marrying:
"The norm is for two adult of childbearing age to have children. Thus the sole litmus test for marriage should be whether the two adults are of childbearing age. This deal takes into account that a certain amount of these couples can't or won't have children. Since it's such a wide blanket rule it has to assume there will be flukes. Notably elderly couples are not flukes. They naturally can't have children and, as such, can be covered by the, ahem, blanket rule."
See? It works that way too. It doesn't matter by what quality you discriminate -- whether it's by age of by gender, you can always phrase your deal in terms of general success and exceptional failure.
Unless someone can demonstrate that there is a gross social utility loss by allowing children to be raised by two people of the same gender, there is no sufficient justification for oppression.
Sometimes the public needs to be dragged into change? I hardly see how dragging the public into changes helps ADVANCE society at all. Just because the general view of society doesn't support your beliefs and feelings does not mean the government should force those beliefs onto the public.
The public has a right to argue against anything they believe to immoral, wrong, or injustice. That is democracy and I don't agree with what you are saying about gay marriage.
Tyranny of the majority? I'm sorry the majority does not accept that you want to get married to someone of the same sex. It IS unfair, but it is more unfair to say "too bad people, you're too dumb you don't get to vote on this matter."
Again, I agree with you about deserving the right to get married, but the views of society are much more important than people who have special needs.
Democracy is generally late on granting minority rights.
It is not more unfair to say, "This is an issue of minority rights -- thus appeal to the majority probably doesn't make a lick of sense."
We are not a pure democracy, thank God.
Or something.
kthnx, kbye <3 <3 <3 <3
That's true, and historically change did not come without much effort on the behalf of the minorities who wanted those rights.
You make a valid point sir. I guess it's more up to the gay guys/gals to show their side of the story to the government and get over the hurdles that stand in their way.
Hint: That isn't what sexuality is.
Letting society retain its stupid views isn't either. One way moves foreward in a positive and the other doesn't.
Thank god this isn't a direct democracy.
That isn't unfair. A right is never equal to an opinion. Ever.
Special needs that everyone else has. And the views of soceity does not mean **** when it comes to freedom.
kthnx, kbye <3 <3 <3 <3
And yes, I am comparing homosexuality to race in this case, because it fits almost flawlessly. As of Loving v. Virginia, 1967, there were 16 states that still held bans against interracial marriages. Go ask some of the interracial couples how sometimes being dragged into change is a bad thing. Tell the couples that were subsequently allowed to marry after that, that it was their choice in the first place, and they should have to abide by what the majority felt was right. Tell them that what the people felt about their relationship was more valid than what they felt.
The creator of Maro's Magic 8-Ball!
But why stop at two? Because it's "normal"? That's (a) not an argument and (b) not even particularly true. Why not require polygamy, on the grounds that if two diverse caregivers are better for the child, three or more must be better still?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, Stan's example is perfectly valid. A couple who meet and wish to get married beyond the age of (say) 65 are *just* as fitting for the phrasing of your rule.
But lets ignore that for a moment, because your basic premise is flawed.
If the purpose of the financial benefits of marriage is children (but not explicit), why would the government offer additional financial incentives explicitly for children?
The financial incentives for marriage are for a couple of reasons. One is married couples offer certainty and stability to society. The second is that someone in a long term relationship (married or otherwise, although marriage does tend to be longer term) tends to be healthier, on average, than someone who is not. (It's a not huge but statisticly significant difference, IIRC) This is of obvious benefit to society.
What?
I said the rule, equally justifiable by your "blanket/exception" argument, would be that elderly couples could not become married. As in, two elderly, single people decide to marry one another.
Obviously a kind of forced divorce rule would be strawmanning your position. I'm not doing that.