PDA

View Full Version : Same-sex marriage [strictly on-topic thread]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2008, 08:19 PM
But then referenda on marriage = one man + one woman passed in three more states, including CA.

Ironically the passage of Resolution 8 in California was strongly supported by non-white voters, especially black voters, and it is therefore speculated that a somewhat ironic side-effect of Obama's ability to raise the black turnout was that Resolution 8 was (regrettably IMO) passed.

Doesn't seem like its passage has anything much to do with the strength of the Christian Right.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 01:14 PM
Though I'm not politically minded I'm learning quite a bit from this US election. You know what I believe? It might sound a bit outlandish but I believe people should be able to vote more the on issues and less on the person. Meaning, for example, if you want to ban gay marriage, do it on by a state by state basis and allow the people of each state to vote on that issue. If a bill or policy is having trouble passing because of some organization or lobbyist group, then put the issue to a vote. If a bill gets passed that people didn't like, they only have themselves to blame for not taking responsibility via voting.
Indeed, but Obamov and the Dems want to take this right away from the states by appointing radical judges to impose their political preferences by fiat. CA's referendum on gay marriage was a response to such judicial tyranny.

Obamov stated in 2001 that the Constitution was defective in not allowing government redistribution of wealth, and has stated that he wants judges who will take sides rather than rule on what the law says.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 05:53 PM
It might sound a bit outlandish but I believe people should be able to vote more the on issues and less on the person. Meaning, for example, if you want to ban gay marriage, do it on by a state by state basis and allow the people of each state to vote on that issue. If a bill or policy is having trouble passing because of some organization or lobbyist group, then put the issue to a vote. If a bill gets passed that people didn't like, they only have themselves to blame for not taking responsibility via voting.

Whether this is a left wing or right wing view, I don't know.

Probably neither.

I don't agree with it though. There is simply no reasonable reason that the State should prohibit gay marriage, as it does not harm anyone to allow gay people to marry in a civil ceremony. If specific churches want to refuse to marry gay people that's their business. In my view there should be constitutional restrictions on the ability of the people or "democratic" governments to restrict gay marriage, and gay marriage (in common with many other issues of personal liberty) should be protected from having restrictions placed on it by either the nation or the state, either through the legislature or by popular vote.

Sometimes it is forgotten that we are supposed to be living in a liberal democracy, and what that should mean is that there are cases where the right of the majority (or their representatives) to interfere with the freedoms of consensual minorities should simply not exist. If you want a society where freedoms are always up for a vote then that is not a liberal democracy but a state of majority tyranny.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 06:03 PM
If specific churches want to refuse to marry gay people that's their business.
But the Gay-stapo (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/09/08/the_gaystapo) wants to make it their business. Already, in the People's Republics of Canada (http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/alberta-hrc-christians-have-no.html)and Sweden (http://www.akegreen.org/), pastors have been fined or even jailed for sermons in their own churches under homonazi laws against saying anything negative about homosexual behaviour: i.e. they must in effect renounce their religion of biblical Christianity.

As Thomas Sowell (who is not a Christian AFAIK) said (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp)recently:


Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay “marriage”.

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

...

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Note that Proposition 8 was not about banning same-sex marriages, but about restricting government's ability to force the rest of us to recognize same-sex unions as marriage. S.T. Karnick writes in The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6karnick.php)"


...
Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

...

In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.

The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.
...

Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex “marriage” ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.
...


Sometimes it is forgotten that we are supposed to be living in a liberal democracy, and what that should mean is that there are cases where the right of the majority (or their representatives) to interfere with the freedoms of consensual minorities should simply not exist. If you want a society where freedoms are always up for a vote then that is not a liberal democracy but a state of majority tyranny.
All true; I tend to the libertarian view that government should punish actions that hurt others, not those that might hurt themselves. But Obamov wants a tyranny of an oligarchy of activist judges who follow the "living consitution" crap.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 07:18 PM
But the Gay-Stapo wants to make it their business. Already, in the People's Republics of Canada (http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/alberta-hrc-christians-have-no.html)and Sweden (http://www.akegreen.org/), pastors have been fined or even jailed for sermons in their own churches under homonazi laws against saying anything negative about homosexual behaviour: i.e. they must in effect renounce their religion of biblical Christianity.

Separate issue. I'd be interested in any evidence that any attempt has been made to force churches to marry gay people.


As Thomas Sowell (who is not a Christian AFAIK) said (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp)recently:

[INDENT]Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

This is rather like going back 100 or so years and saying:

"Another fraud being discussed this year is female suffrage.

Voting has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant voting by men. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise when men vote."

What is there in marriage law that cannot be easily translated to gay marriage? Furthermore, the "circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman" have shifted a great deal (at least in frequency) over that 100 years - and the law has frequently shifted with them.


Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

So? Gay unions often at least raise children and how children are raised is far more important than how they are produced. And as for marriage not being a right, since when are heterosexual couples of eligible age and wanting to marry refused permission to do so? It's certainly a legal and an actual right for heterosexual couples as well as a reasonable (if far from necessary) entitlement - what other kind of "right" does Sowell imagine exists?


Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

Actually in this particular debate we are discussing whether it is anybody else's business if gay people marry. The answer is that it isn't.


None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Sowell certainly doesn't have a right to mine for the feeble arguments he is making against gay marriage. :hand:


All true, but Obamov wants a tyranny of an oligarchy of activist judges who follow the "living consitution" crap.

Irrelevant since in this case those activist judges would be likely to interpret the constitution in a libertarian direction, which is welcome given the severity of the obstacles to changing it.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2008, 07:25 PM
If two (or even more!) men or women want to live together, as well as to have sexual relationship, it's their business. They don't need my (or anyone else) approval.
I am free to disapprove (and express it publicly). They are free to completely disregard it and tell me to go jump.

However, they don't have right to force me to approve it. They can't force to say it's normal. They can't force me to use the word "gay" in the meaning "homosexual", even though that's what same-sex advocate are trying to do.
As a result, the word "gay" complete lost it's original meaning.
Also I don't want them to force teaching of homosexuality as normal relationship in school.

Latest referendum in California was not about right of same sex couple. They already have the same rights as married couples. It was about redefining the meaning of word "marriage".

Historically the raison-d-etra for marriage and family was rearing and bringing up children. Of course it's not the only reason people marry Nowadays, but it does not justify changing the meaning of the word and legal term.

Homosexuals are free to pick up any fancy name for the same sex couple. They can even call their union marriage. But they can't force me to call it marriage.

Rincewind
11-11-2008, 07:38 PM
This discussion looks like it could well do with a thread split. Unless everyone is finished commending McCain on his gracious loser's speech and is happy to talk solely about the pros and cons of gay marriage.

Regarding the raising of children issue, there are already many children being raised by gay couples and if that is the main reason we "allow" men and women to marry then there should be no impediment to gay marriage.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 07:53 PM
Oh, I see there's more:


Note that Proposition 8 was not about banning same-sex marriages, but about restricting government's ability to force the rest of us to recognize same-sex unions as marriage.

People can decide for themselves what they consider to be "a marriage". If the government considers two people to be married but an individual disagrees with the rites or laws under which they were married and thinks it isn't a "real" marriage, that's up to them. The law can't dictate what people think. So who would be "forced" to recognise anything and how? Aaah, I see, your next source has the answers to that ...


Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

Karnick goes on to suggest the rights of the following are at risk:

* Churches. A moot point and a scare campaign unless any evidence can be supplied that the law would force all churches to perform gay marriages.

* Insurance companies and employers: oooh, no, insurance companies and employers might be prohibited from scamming gay couples by treating them differently from same-sex couples. What a frightening impact that might have on their balance sheets given the enormous number of gay people getting married every second that they can. How did such noble institutions survive the rise of women's rights in the workplace without going under?


In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position.

Not if the same freedom to not treat unions as marriages is not extended to mixed-sex couples of marrying age. (And see below.)


The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.

This sounds like scare campaigning as well. Adoption agencies already have very extensive powers to discriminate against those couples where they can demonstrate that the welfare of the child is at elevated risk of harm by adoption by those parents. If they can't demonstrate it in this case it is a non-issue, if they can demonstrate it they should be allowed to refuse, and if they can demonstrate it but aren't allowed to refuse then that is a matter for adoption law reform and not a reason to stop gay people from marrying.


Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex “marriage” ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not.

This is disingeneous contradictory twaddle. Karnick argues that legalising gay marriage will force people to recognise gay couples as married, and then argues that the legality of mixed-sex marriage (as it exists) doesn't currently force people to recognise married couples as married. Bizarre ...


The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.
...

... oh, but he's saying that's because "society" requires it and the law is simply the tail that is wagged by the dog. He doesn't bother considering whether the biases inherent in "historical and cultural preferences dating back millenia" might themselves be "unfair or oppressive" as they so often have been before.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 07:58 PM
Separate issue. I'd be interested in any evidence that any attempt has been made to force churches to marry gay people.
That cited article (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6karnick.php)says:


The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse … provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex “liberators” are in practice, including the following:


Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. …

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

Add this to the instances of fining and even jailing pastors for daring to oppose the homonazi agenda.


This is rather like going back 100 or so years and saying:

"Another fraud being discussed this year is female suffrage.

Voting has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant voting by men. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise when men vote."
Not at all. Marriage has existed for millennia, and has always means man + woman; voting is a relatively recent invention, and there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to men.

And the high black vote against this Gay-stapo judicial fiat shows they are not buying the crap that opposing gay "marriage" is like opposing inter-racial marriage. Of course it isn't, since race is not inherent in the definition of marriage, but man and woman is. The Gay-stapo argument is like accusing proponents of single-sex loos as akin to supporters of white-only loos.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 08:04 PM
Latest referendum in California was not about right of same sex couple. They already have the same rights as married couples.

Then why do you have authors like this Karnick person arguing that the entitlements of same sex couples (re treatment by employers and insurance agencies) are very much at stake.


It was about redefining the meaning of word "marriage".

Well there is already no consensus on that subject anyway. We have, in this world, people who think marriage is forever and people who think it is a codification of serial monogamy. We have people who think marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman whose place is in the kitchen (though this view is certainly on the way out) and people who think it is an equal alliance of the sexes. There are cultures where marriage is between a man and up to four different women, and others where it can be arranged by parents rather than agreed between the parties. There are people who think marriage is a licence to have sex or a licence to breed and others who regard marriage as valid but consider it irrelevant to those issues. And so on.


Historically the raison-d-etra for marriage and family was rearing and bringing up children.

It was also to define the husband's rights over the wife, an attitude that has fallen by the wayside. Who cares what things were "historically" when there is legitimate reason for change (and anyway, gay people can bring up children too).


Homosexuals are free to pick up any fancy name for the same sex couple. They can even call their union marriage. But they can't force me to call it marriage.

No one is forcing you to call it anything, just as nobody forces me to call all mixed-sex marriages "marriages". For instance, I could decide that from this point on I will call every marriage involving one or more people who do not support gay marriage a pseudomarriage. I could declare that if a person does not recognise the right of all people all consenting adult human couples not already married to anyone else to marry, then I consider their own "marriage" meaningless. Would the Polizei be at my door for that? I doubt it somehow. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 08:23 PM
That cited article (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6karnick.php)says:


The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse … provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex “liberators” are in practice, including the following:

[INDENT]Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.

Well so it should. If an institution is getting tax-exempt status for doing good deeds then the government has every right to insist that it treat all people equally. If it doesn't want to do this it can go back to paying its normal taxes like anything else. This has nothing to do with libertarianism because (a) tax-exempt status of religious institutions is not an unconditional liberty anyway (b) true libertarians believe we should all be exempt from nearly all existing taxes so would only consider this debate to be one about one level of tax oppression vs another (and a far from straightforward one, since a tax exemption for churches means more tax oppression for the rest.)


In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. …

Again this is a separate issue with nothing to do with gay marriage.


And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

And this is also a separate issue because she was objecting to photographing a "commitment ceremony" not a marriage. However, FWIW, this is an issue where I don't believe the state has any role. A business that discriminates over something as non-essential as a photograph should not be punished by Human Rights Commissions and the like. Rather it should be punished through outing as homophobic in free and fair debate, hopefully leading to a massive backlash, consumer boycott and bankruptcy.


Not at all. Marriage has existed for millennia, and has always means man + woman

No it doesn't. It can mean man + women in many countries as I already pointed out above.


voting is a relatively recent invention,

You mean "relatively recent", like in Ancient Greece? Sheesh, according to you that's over a quarter of the age of the earth ago!


and there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to men.

Not anymore. But once upon a time to argue that women should be able to vote would bring you even more ridicule than those arguing for gay marriage get from the most outrageous of homophobes.


And the high black vote against this Gay-stapo judicial fiat shows they are not buying the crap that opposing gay "marriage" is like opposing inter-racial marriage.

I'm not sure what it shows, but I doubt it's that, since the issue of inter-racial marriage is one that affects all races.


Of course it isn't, since race is not inherent in the definition of marriage, but man and woman is. The Gay-stapo argument is like accusing proponents of single-sex loos as akin to supporters of white-only loos.

No, it's like what would happen if there were loos for some sorts of people and no loos at all (or inferior ones) for others.

Crossfire (Axiom)
11-11-2008, 08:28 PM
The very simple has been politicised beyond recognition .
The definition of "marriage" is the legal union between a man and a women .
If the homosexuals want their own legal union then perhaps call it something else .
Otherwise a change of definition is necessary

TheJoker
11-11-2008, 08:32 PM
So are people opposed to the practice of legally binding civil unions between same-sex couples or are they simply against the use of the word marriage? For me I couldn't care less about the semantic debate. And I cant think of any valid reason for me to oppose same-sex unions. I just can't see it having any direct bearing me.

Assuming same-sex marriage is legal, should churches be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples? What about inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, asian couples, elderly couples, dogs? At what point does it become discrimination or a farce? I agree with KB about them loosing their tax free status if they do refuse. Being tax free is essentially the same as being government funded.

It is easy to why same-sex couples are demanding equal treatment by public institutions since they pay their taxes just like hetero couples. But to what extent should private institutions be allowed to discriminate? Personally I think price/income should be the only discriminator. If you are offering a service to memebers or the public you should offer it equally to everyone, except where it would be dangerous to do so.

Rincewind
11-11-2008, 08:33 PM
Otherwise a change of definition is necessary

Ok. Lets just do that.

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 08:36 PM
The very simple has been politicised beyond recognition .
The definition of "marriage" is the legal union between a man and a women .

Probably an unintentional typo on your part but it neatly underlines the point I was making - in some nations a man can only marry one woman, in others a man can marry several, so there is already great variety in what is recognised as marriage.


If the homosexuals want their own legal union then perhaps call it something else .
Otherwise a change of definition is necessary

Even if so, definitions change all the time, frequently for very good reasons, so even if a definition has to change, so what?

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 08:40 PM
Assuming same-sex marriage is legal, should churches be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples? What about inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, asian couples, elderly couples, dogs? At what point does it become discrimination or a farce?

Dogs can't give informed consent.

In my view churches should be allowed to marry or refuse to marry whoever they wish. Anyone refused by a church can get married in a civil ceremony or by a different church.

Crossfire (Axiom)
11-11-2008, 08:47 PM
Ok. Lets just do that. I admire your perspicacity but do we have the necessary authority to do so ?
Assuming , no doubt , that we do not , then all i can really offer is crossfire. ;)

Crossfire (Axiom)
11-11-2008, 08:51 PM
Dogs can't give informed consent.
Yet another definitional crisis .

Rincewind
11-11-2008, 09:00 PM
I admire your perspicacity but do we have the necessary authority to do so ?
Assuming , no doubt , that we do not , then all i can really offer is crossfire. ;)

Words are defined by usage so if we use the word marriage to describe gay unions then that is the definition of the word. Regarding the law, that is also changed by society via the legislature and the courts. If we want the law to change then it can be changed.

The main arguments I hear are as to why gay marriage will erode societal standards leading to the breakdown of civilisation as we know it. Pretty much the same arguments people were putting up 100 years ago against giving women the vote, or 40 years ago giving indigenous Australians the vote.

I agree with Kevin's post #3. To be a liberal democracy we need to be inclusive of the freedoms of minorities. The the only issue is the change of some definitions and a few laws then lets get it done. Unless you think there is some reason why such changes should not occur...

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2008, 09:00 PM
I admire your perspicacity but do we have the necessary authority to do so ?

Who is "we" in this context?

Rincewind
11-11-2008, 09:02 PM
Who is "we" in this context?

Before anyone asks, in my previous post I used "we" to mean society in general.

Crossfire (Axiom)
11-11-2008, 09:20 PM
Dogs can't give informed consent.


..but then again , who really can ? ;)

Basil
11-11-2008, 09:26 PM
..but then again , who really can ? ;)
Now that's a topical signature ;) :whistle: :uhoh:

TheJoker
11-11-2008, 09:39 PM
Dogs can't give informed consent.

In my view churches should be allowed to marry or refuse to marry whoever they wish. Anyone refused by a church can get married in a civil ceremony or by a different church.

What about a supermarket that refuses to serve Muslims, is that also ok? What about an suburb where all businesses refuse to serve muslims. Or if the businesses in Lakemba refused to serve non-muslims would you also be happy with that?

Where do you draw the line? apart from dogs;)

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 09:39 PM
Words are defined by usage so if we use the word marriage to describe gay unions then that is the definition of the word.
You can call white "black" if you want, you post-modernist.


Regarding the law, that is also changed by society via the legislature and the courts. If we want the law to change then it can be changed.
Yes, and the people in three more states did NOT want it changed, despite leftist elitists including a handful of activist judges.


I agree with Kevin's post #3. To be a liberal democracy we need to be inclusive of the freedoms of minorities.
They already have freedom. But the people fought back against a vociferous minority demanding a radical re-definition of marriage.

TheJoker
11-11-2008, 09:46 PM
...vociferous minority demanding a radical re-definition of marriage.

I am interested to know what you think would be the negative effect if marriage were re-defined in accordance with their request?

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 09:46 PM
What about a supermarket that refuses to serve Muslims, is that also ok? What about an suburb where all businesses refuse to serve muslims. Or if the businesses in Lakemba refused to serve non-muslims would you also be happy with that?
Should be their choice—and their loss, including boycotts. Note that Thomas Sowell points out that the Jim Crow laws were imposed by government and often opposed by "greedy" businesses who cared more for money than the colour of those paying it—see Rosa Parks and history (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102705.asp). Walter Williams also noted that more discrimination against blacks occurred in non-profit and government agencies than in the free market (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams090507.php3), since the market increases the costs of discrimination (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100406.php3). Both Sowell and Williams are themselves black, in case you didn't realize ;)

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2008, 09:59 PM
Well there is already no consensus on that subject anyway. We have, in this world, people who think marriage is forever and people who think it is a codification of serial monogamy. We have people who think marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman whose place is in the kitchen (though this view is certainly on the way out) and people who think it is an equal alliance of the sexes. There are cultures where marriage is between a man and up to four different women, and others where it can be arranged by parents rather than agreed between the parties. There are people who think marriage is a licence to have sex or a licence to breed and others who regard marriage as valid but consider it irrelevant to those issues. And so on.
All this is about how marriage is applied or arranged, but the gay "marriage" putsch is trying to change what marriage is.


Well so it should. If an institution is getting tax-exempt status for doing good deeds then the government has every right to insist that it treat all people equally.
Not at all. They are not receiving government money.


However, FWIW, this is an issue where I don't believe the state has any role. A business that discriminates over something as non-essential as a photograph should not be punished by Human Rights Commissions and the like. Rather it should be punished through outing as homophobic in free and fair debate, hopefully leading to a massive backlash, consumer boycott and bankruptcy.
That's a better way.


No it doesn't. It can mean man + women in many countries as I already pointed out above.
Still, basically man and woman, not man and men.


You mean "relatively recent", like in Ancient Greece? Sheesh, according to you that's over a quarter of the age of the earth ago!
As if I didn't know, considering that "democracy" is a Greek-derived word.


I could declare that if a person does not recognise the right of all people to marry, then I consider their own "marriage" meaningless.
They do. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man :P

TheJoker
11-11-2008, 10:04 PM
Should be their choice—and their loss, including boycotts.

Yeah but what if the cost is insignificant? Or if the strategy is cost effective, that is the discrimination makes the business more desireable to the majority?

Aaron Guthrie
11-11-2008, 10:18 PM
The context here is the law. First point, legal statutes have no problem defining words. Second point, if you are so upset about the word marriage, just go around saying "married in the eyes of the law".

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 12:17 AM
What about a supermarket that refuses to serve Muslims, is that also ok? What about an suburb where all businesses refuse to serve muslims. Or if the businesses in Lakemba refused to serve non-muslims would you also be happy with that?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't consider any of these cases comparable and don't think any of them should be legal. There is nothing in the nature of a supermarket that should cause it to want to pick and choose what religion of customer it serves, whereas the whole point of a church is supposed to be people sharing certain values and traditions.

Secondly a person is inconvenienced if they can't buy food in a particular place but if a given church won't marry a particular couple then the government can and should. (There may be some inconvenience there too but I think it is reasonable.)

One proviso though: any church that refuses to conduct gay marriages should immediately lose all its entitlements to tax concessions arising out of its position as a marriage provider, if any.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 12:35 AM
All this is about how marriage is applied or arranged, but the gay "marriage" putsch is trying to change what marriage is.

No it isn't. The gay marriage ideal is simply to take what marriage is as practiced by mixed-sex couples (namely: a certain kind of formalised commitment between two people that can be entered into for a wide range of different reasons) and apply or arrange that between same-sex couples as well.

Basically you're answering a question along the lines of "why not extend the current definition of marriage to include gay couples?" with a response along the lines of "because the definition of marriage does not currently and in the past has not included gay couples", which is obviously a non-answer.


Not at all. They are not receiving government money.

They are being charged less tax than they otherwise would be. It is effectively the same thing.


Still, basically man and woman, not man and men.

So? What I'm illustrating is that there is already massive difference between the kinds of marriage situations approved between differing sexes and that compared to that difference, having marriages involving two people of the same sex is hardly a radical departure - especially not when it reflects relationships that are already very widespread.


They do. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man :P

That would be a neater comeback had not so many gay men been driven to doing just that.

However, I shall edit my post to negate that cheap shot I carelessly allowed you. :P

CameronD
12-11-2008, 12:49 AM
I just want to add that religious organizations should not be tax exempt.

I read an article where a christian church (in England by memory) did not hire a homosexual candidate as its youth leader. The pastor was fined 25,000 pounds and ordered to give the job to the man.

In some other countries I believe that pastors can speak against homosexuals under hate speech laws.

The homosexual movement have changed peoples opinion nearly 180 degrees in 30 years.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 01:07 AM
I read an article where a christian church (in England by memory) did not hire a homosexual candidate as its youth leader. The pastor was fined 25,000 pounds and ordered to give the job to the man.
The Gay-stapo at work. As I said, they are not after tolerance but intolerance of any dissent. The above homonazism is like forcing a Labor organization to hire a Liberal.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 01:11 AM
Basically you're answering a question along the lines of "why not extend the current definition of marriage to include gay couples?" with a response along the lines of "because the definition of marriage does not currently and in the past has not included gay couples", which is obviously a non-answer.
It's a perfectly good answer. Most people still don't want to redefine the word, which is why the Gay-stapo has to resort to activist courts.


They are being charged less tax than they otherwise would be. It is effectively the same thing.
Not at all. A government-funded organization entails means that money is forcibly coerced from others to give to it. A tax exempt organization entails that the government doesn't coerce money from it.

You may be a fundy atheist if.... (http://www.tektonics.org/af/fundyath.html)
You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 08:53 AM
Then why do you have authors like this Karnick person arguing that the entitlements of same sex couples (re treatment by employers and insurance agencies) are very much at stake.
Ask Karnick, not me



Well there is already no consensus on that subject anyway. We have, in this world, people who think marriage is forever and people who think it is a codification of serial monogamy. We have people who think marriage is a relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman whose place is in the kitchen (though this view is certainly on the way out) and people who think it is an equal alliance of the sexes. There are cultures where marriage is between a man and up to four different women, and others where it can be arranged by parents rather than agreed between the parties. There are people who think marriage is a licence to have sex or a licence to breed and others who regard marriage as valid but consider it irrelevant to those issues. And so on.

They all have two things in common:
1. Between man and woman (or women)
2. Children is the major issue they are trying to address.




No one is forcing you to call it anything, just as nobody forces me to call all mixed-sex marriages "marriages".
Change of law will


For instance, I could decide that from this point on I will call every marriage involving one or more people who do not support gay marriage a pseudomarriage. I could declare that if a person does not recognise the right of all people all consenting adult human couples not already married to anyone else to marry, then I consider their own "marriage" meaningless. Would the Polizei be at my door for that? I doubt it somehow. :lol:
Actually, if you voice your objections against homosexuality too loudly in, say, Canada, you might find Polizei not only at your door, but in your house as well.

Let me ask two questions:
What right homosexuals do not have that married families do have?
If the same-sex union is redefined as marriage, what extra rights would it give to same-sex couple?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:03 AM
So are people opposed to the practice of legally binding civil unions between same-sex couples or are they simply against the use of the word marriage?

No to the first, yes to the second.


Assuming same-sex marriage is legal, should churches be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples? What about inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, asian couples, elderly couples, dogs? At what point does it become discrimination or a farce? I agree with KB about them loosing their tax free status if they do refuse. Being tax free is essentially the same as being government funded.


I would actually prefer if government butt out completely out of marriage business. Marriage (at least in a free country) should be a contract between a man and a woman. They can use a "template" provided by particular church, if they wish. In this case any church is free to whatever they want.

Unfortunately, homosexual activists are not satisfied with repelling the laws that used to discriminate against them. Now they want to use government to discriminate in their favour. same-sex union called "marriage" is part of that campaign.


But to what extent should private institutions be allowed to discriminate? Personally I think price/income should be the only discriminator. If you are offering a service to memebers or the public you should offer it equally to everyone, except where it would be dangerous to do so.

IMHO, private institution should be free to discriminate against whoever they want to. After all, if they are so stupid, they just create ample opportunities for more tolerant businesses.
Any private organisation discriminating against particular group unreasonable is punished monetarily. However, it's their money.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:06 AM
I agree with Kevin's post #3. To be a liberal democracy we need to be inclusive of the freedoms of minorities. The the only issue is the change of some definitions and a few laws then lets get it done. Unless you think there is some reason why such changes should not occur...
To be a liberal democracy (as opposed to social democracy, which we have at the moment), we need to stop government subsidies of any lifestyle. That way there will be no discrimination against any minorities (do what you want, but with your own money).

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 09:07 AM
“Disparaging remarks about gays, lesbians and adulterers” (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=df4b3dac-45c2-4fff-842b-b2d5b0cb39de)Even though he was off duty at the time, LAPD demotes veteran cop for quoting scriptural passages against homosexuality

A police sergeant who has served nearly 16 years with the department has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department alleging he was illegally demoted and has been repeatedly denied promotions after he made off-duty comments critical of homosexuality.

Sgt. Eric Holyfield, who when not on police duty serves as senior pastor at the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church, made the remarks on Sept. 29, 2006 while delivering the eulogy at the funeral of a fellow officer at a private chapel in Whittier. The fallen officer’s family had asked Holyfield to deliver the eulogy. At the time, Holyfield was on vacation and off duty.

During the eulogy, Holyfield quoted various scriptures, including this passage from First Corinthians, Chapter 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor.%206:9-11;&version=31;): ...

Since then, Holyfield says he has been denied promotions at least nine times, all because of his religious beliefs.

The LAPD has “historically discriminated against LAPD officers that engage in protected activity and continues to discriminate against officers that cite from the Holy Bible,” says the lawsuit.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages, attorneys’ fees and for a permanent injunction against the LAPD prohibiting similar actions against its officers in the future.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:08 AM
What about a supermarket that refuses to serve Muslims, is that also ok? What about an suburb where all businesses refuse to serve muslims. Or if the businesses in Lakemba refused to serve non-muslims would you also be happy with that?

Where do you draw the line? apart from dogs;)
As long as they are private companies operating on the private property.
How many do you think will stick to discrimination policy when if costs them money (unless, of course, they are forced to discriminate. For example, by gangs that burn businesses dealing with infidels, etc.)

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 09:11 AM
'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220)

WorldNetDaily, 5 Nov 2008

Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

...

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs.

"This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity," he said. "The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.' Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians."

...

Liberty Counsel's Barber said, "This is not free speech; these are 'hate crimes' under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law."

...

"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:18 AM
“Disparaging remarks about gays, lesbians and adulterers” (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=df4b3dac-45c2-4fff-842b-b2d5b0cb39de)Even though he was off duty at the time, LAPD demotes veteran cop for quoting scriptural passages against homosexuality

A police sergeant who has served nearly 16 years with the department has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department alleging he was illegally demoted and has been repeatedly denied promotions after he made off-duty comments critical of homosexuality.

Sgt. Eric Holyfield, who when not on police duty serves as senior pastor at the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church, made the remarks on Sept. 29, 2006 while delivering the eulogy at the funeral of a fellow officer at a private chapel in Whittier. The fallen officer’s family had asked Holyfield to deliver the eulogy. At the time, Holyfield was on vacation and off duty.

During the eulogy, Holyfield quoted various scriptures, including this passage from First Corinthians, Chapter 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor.%206:9-11;&version=31;): ...

Since then, Holyfield says he has been denied promotions at least nine times, all because of his religious beliefs.

The LAPD has “historically discriminated against LAPD officers that engage in protected activity and continues to discriminate against officers that cite from the Holy Bible,” says the lawsuit.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages, attorneys’ fees and for a permanent injunction against the LAPD prohibiting similar actions against its officers in the future.

People or groups that want to use government muscle to get any sort of special privileges quickly get my contempt.
Most activist group that original formed to combat some discrimination do not dissolve themselves when equal rights are granted. To justify their existence (and line their pockets, and stroke their ego, etc.) they start pushing for preferential treatment. Homosexual activists (as well as many other groups) are in this category.

Desmond
12-11-2008, 09:42 AM
..
As Thomas Sowell (who is not a Christian AFAIK) said (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp)recently:
...
You didn't quote the fun bit where he lumped pedophiles in with homosexuals.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 09:53 AM
This sounds like scare campaigning as well. Adoption agencies already have very extensive powers to discriminate against those couples where they can demonstrate that the welfare of the child is at elevated risk of harm by adoption by those parents. If they can't demonstrate it in this case it is a non-issue, if they can demonstrate it they should be allowed to refuse, and if they can demonstrate it but aren't allowed to refuse then that is a matter for adoption law reform and not a reason to stop gay people from marrying.


Generally speaking, you are right (in an ideal world). In reality, adoption agency follows certain procedures. If, on one hand, those procedures do not prescribe against adoption by same-sex couple (IMO, they should, and I am happy to discuss it), and, on the other hand, this agency is subjected to pressure from vocal activist group screaming "discrimination" each time application by same-sex couple is rejected, this agency will quickly start giving those same-sex couple a preferential treatment.
If you observe real world time to time, you'd agree that's the most likely outcome.

Rincewind
12-11-2008, 10:00 AM
To be a liberal democracy (as opposed to social democracy, which we have at the moment), we need to stop government subsidies of any lifestyle. That way there will be no discrimination against any minorities (do what you want, but with your own money).

If I read your intention correctly you are advocating for the dismantling of social welfare and programs which attempt to deal with inequities in the state. When you do that you basically disenfranchise the poor which leads to an Illiberal Democracy.

But to a large extent the social vs conservative debate is different to the liberal vs illiberal, except that social democracies tend to be more liberal than conservative ones for the reason above.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 10:26 AM
If I read your intention correctly you are advocating for the dismantling of social welfare and programs which attempt to deal with inequities in the state.

Which inequities you are talking about? Inequities of treatment by the law?
Inequities of opportunity? Or inequities of outcome? (of which inequities of income is an example). How do they relate to lifestyle subsidised by the government?


But to a large extent the social vs conservative debate is different to the liberal vs illiberal, except that social democracies tend to be more liberal than conservative ones for the reason above.

You can debate social vs conservative to your heart content. Everyone define conservative as they wish and it means different things every time.

As for liberal vs illiberal, it is quite simple.
The word "liberal" is from "liberty", which is synonymous to "freedom".
Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
- Do not initiate force against other people.
- Do not initiate force against other people's property.

The rest can be derived from those principles.

Liberal is about what government can do.
Democracy is how the government is formed.

Social democracy disregards second principle of liberal society, therefore it is not liberal.

I haven't heard the term "Conservative democracy", therefore I cannot comment whether it's liberal or not. If you define the term (without contradicting the meaning of "conservative" or "democracy"), them it can be debated.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 10:32 AM
You didn't quote the fun bit where he lumped pedophiles in with homosexuals.
Blame the leftmedia who refer to "pedophile priests" when in reality they are gay priests, as well as traitors to their faith.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
- Do not initiate force against other people.
- Do not initiate force against other people's property.

The rest can be derived from those principles.

Liberal is about what government can do.
Democracy is how the government is formed.

Social democracy disregards second principle of liberal society, therefore it is not liberal.

In the Nov 08 Quadrant there is a good article by David Flint, “320 years of Freedom” about the English “Glorious revolution”. In this, he makes points independently made by Sowell and Williams: that in England, that it's once successful democracy was “preceded by ‘constitutional liberalism’”:

Constitutional liberalism, with the people enjoying basic freedoms, including the protection of their property, and stable limited government with adequate checks and balances, came before democracy.

This point was not fully appreciated int the occupation of Iraq. … It was in the attempt to introduce democracy that the lessons of history were not fully appreciated. … Good limited government requires not only the rule of law but a panoply of checks and balances, sufficient to prevent abuse, but not so great as to cause instability or paralysis in government. … Democracy can really only come when a libeal constitution is well and truly in place.

Williams argued in 2000 that free markets are more important than democracy for economic prosperity (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams112900.asp):


... democracy is not a necessary condition for economic growth and, in fact, democracy might impede economic growth. Let's look at it. There are several, once very impoverished countries that experienced significant and rapid economic growth without democratic institutions. Some examples and their respective per capita GDPs are: Chile ($12,700), Hong Kong ($25,200), Taiwan ($12,000), Singapore ($28,000) and South Korea ($13,600). To the extent that political democracy exists in these countries today, it has only recently emerged.

What's true about these once-backward countries is they all have relatively free markets -- in a word, they're economically free.
...

Political democracy, and India is an excellent example, can jeopardize economic prosperity because people, forming interest groups and using their political freedom, can subvert and compromise the free market institutions vital to economic growth.

Desmond
12-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Blame the leftmedia who refer to "pedophile priests" when in reality they are gay priests, as well as traitors to their faith.Are you saying that there is no such thing as pedophilia, only homosexuality?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 10:53 AM
Are you saying that there is no such thing as pedophilia, only homosexuality?
Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles.

Tammy Bruce, herself a lesbian atheist, points out in The Death of Right and Wrong that those with promiscuous appetites are more likely to head for younger partners more likely to be free of STDs, so are drawn to occupations where they will be in authority over younger people. Hence the high incidence of sexual abuse in the teaching profession as well. She also opposes male homosexual scoutmasters for the same reason she opposes male heterosexual leaders in girl guides: that it's unwise to put a group of same-sex kids in the charge of an adult attracted to their sex.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 10:54 AM
Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles.


I'd say they are both.

Desmond
12-11-2008, 11:01 AM
Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles. Talking about actual teenagers, i.e. 13 and up, you might have an arguable case, but I was under the impression that the majority of cases would be kids younger than that.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 11:05 AM
Talking about actual teenagers, i.e. 13 and up, you might have an arguable case, but I was under the impression that the majority of cases would be kids younger than that.
Not according to the research by Tammy Bruce as well as former CBS journalist Bernard Goldberg pointed out in his book Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6351). If it was really pedophilia among this (tiny minority of) Catholic priests, then just as many girl abuse cases would be reported.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 11:06 AM
I'd say they are both.
There you have a point, but it is just the one I was making above.

Rincewind
12-11-2008, 11:21 AM
As for liberal vs illiberal, it is quite simple.
The word "liberal" is from "liberty", which is synonymous to "freedom".
Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
- Do not initiate force against other people.
- Do not initiate force against other people's property.

I disagree with your definition of the meaning of liberal in this context. Perhaps you grew up in a foreign tradition but the Australian concept of liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities. This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market. Both these fundamental tenets of out liberal democracy are necessary to allow the citizenship to actively participate in society and avoid the tyranny of majority which is the outcome of an unregulated system which is how you seem to define a liberal democracy.

If you want to find out more about what liberal democracy means in Australia I can recommend the Oxford Companion to Australian Politics.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 11:29 AM
I disagree with your definition of the meaning of liberal in this context. Perhaps you grew up in a foreign tradition but the Australian concept of liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities.
If the State just gets out of the way, there will be equal opportunity. In practice, lefties want the State to act for more equal outcomes.


This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market.
That in practice results in equal opportunities for miseducation and poverty, respectively.

Miranda
12-11-2008, 11:31 AM
I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.

Desmond
12-11-2008, 11:32 AM
I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.I agree.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 11:50 AM
I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.
Not usually applied to teens long past puberty. Pedophilia comes from From Greek παις, παιδ– "child" and φιλία "love, friendship", and is defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

So Goldberg and Bruce are right: wayward priest who prey on teenage boys are really gays not pedophiles.

Miranda
12-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Not usually applied to teens long past puberty. Pedophilia comes from From Greek παις, παιδ– "child" and φιλία "love, friendship", and is defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

So Goldberg and Bruce are right: wayward priest who prey on teenage boys are really gays not pedophiles.

OK then, wayward preists who prey on teenage boys are just disgusting, despicable people.

Phrased nicely enough for you?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 12:02 PM
OK then, wayward preists who prey on teenage boys are just disgusting, despicable people.
This was never in dispute.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 01:01 PM
Blame the leftmedia who refer to "pedophile priests" when in reality they are gay priests, as well as traitors to their faith.

Actually considering some priests abused underage girls, the term pedophile is more appropriate

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 01:02 PM
Actually considering some priests abused underage girls, the term pedophile is more appropriate
Except that pedophilia is abuse of those near or pre-puberty, and most of the cases involve boys.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 01:03 PM
I am interested to know what you think would be the negative effect if marriage were re-defined in accordance with their request?

Anyone going to answer this question?

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 01:05 PM
Except that pedophilia is abuse of those near or pre-puberty, and most of the cases involve boys.

The key word there being most. Since it is not all the term pedophile is accurate. Even it if where all the time the term pedophile is still accurate since it can be applied equally to a person who abuses either sex

pax
12-11-2008, 01:14 PM
So Goldberg and Bruce are right: wayward priest who prey on teenage boys are really gays not pedophiles.

You have a logic problem. "All priests who abuse of boys are gay" is NOT equivalent to "all gay priests abuse boys".

There are presumably many priests who feel an attraction to men, and who either choose *not* to act on this attraction, or who act by carrying out relationships with adults. The morality of such conduct is an entirely separate issue to that of predatory behaviour towards boys.

Talking about "gay priests" when you actually mean "priests who prey on boys" is extremely unfair to gay priests who do not prey on boys. You may consider homosexuality to be equivalent to child abuse, but please do not impose your morals on the rest of us.

Adamski
12-11-2008, 01:19 PM
Anyone going to answer this question?The notion of marriage being between one man and man woman is at the basis of western society. It goes back to the Bible's book of Genesis, quoted in the gospels. "Therefore a man shall leave his mother and cleave to his wife and they shaLL BECOME ONE FLESH." The "therefore" refers back to God creating man male and female - as Jono says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. In addition, most statutes would need to be rewritten if the definition of marriage was so fundamentally changed.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 01:35 PM
The notion of marriage being between one man and man woman is at the basis of western society. It goes back to the Bible's book of Genesis, quoted in the gospels. "Therefore a man shall leave his mother and cleave to his wife and they shaLL BECOME ONE FLESH." The "therefore" refers back to God creating man male and female - as Jono says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. In addition, most statutes would need to be rewritten if the definition of marriage was so fundamentally changed.

So you are saying the only negative effect is the cost of re-writting various pieces of legislation?

Other than that you didn't provide any specific negative effects of redefining the term marriage.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 01:57 PM
You have a logic problem. "All priests who abuse of boys are gay" is NOT equivalent to "all gay priests abuse boys".
I might if I had actually said that.


There are presumably many priests who feel an attraction to men, and who either choose *not* to act on this attraction, or who act by carrying out relationships with adults. The morality of such conduct is an entirely separate issue to that of predatory behaviour towards boys.
By the same token, there might be priests who feel an attraction to young children who choose not to act on this attraction.

And there are organizations like AMBLA who whinge about this irrational prejudice of pedophobia. Also, the international Humanist values and ethics convention Australis2000 held in Sydney, Australia, invited Vern Bullough, the Humanist pedophile advocate and an editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, as a speaker


You may consider homosexuality to be equivalent to child abuse,
I never said that either. I said that when a high percentage of young people abused by wayward priests are teenaged boys not children of both sexes, then "gay" is a better term than "pedophile". So the leftmedia that rail against "pedophile priests" are to blame for the stated equivalence that you whinge about.


but please do not impose your morals on the rest of us.
I've documented that a number of homonazis want to impose their morality on the rest of us, e.g. by trying to use government force to coerce us to recognize same-sex unions as "marriage"; and fire, fine or even jail Christians who refuse to kowtow to their agenda.

You may be a fundy atheist if.... (http://www.tektonics.org/af/fundyath.html)
You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 01:58 PM
The key word there being most. Since it is not all the term pedophile is accurate.
For the majority of cases which involve boys, gay is accurate.


Even it if where all the time the term pedophile is still accurate since it can be applied equally to a person who abuses either sex
No it's not, since it doesn't apply to those way past puberty.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 02:37 PM
For the majority of cases which involve boys, gay is accurate.

No because sexual orientation is largley irrelevant. The significant information to convey in the term is the sexual abuse therefore the applicable term (such as pedophile or rapists etc) that conveys abuse should be used.

You don't call a priest that abuses young girls a "straight" priest or a hetero priest because sexual orientation is not important. The important thing is the abuse.

I hope you can see the lunacy in your logic. Next you'll be asking that they refer to all rapists on the news simply as heterosexual men rather than rapists since that is the predominant sexual orientation among rapists.

For an educated man your stupidty often amazes me.

pax
12-11-2008, 02:41 PM
By the same token, there might be priests who feel an attraction to young children who choose not to act on this attraction.

Yes, and for this reason the word pederast is probably better suited to those that act on the attraction.

pax
12-11-2008, 02:43 PM
I never said that either. I said that when a high percentage of young people abused by wayward priests are teenaged boys not children of both sexes, then "gay" is a better term than "pedophile".

Perhaps neither is accurate. Your preference that they be referred to as "gay" priests clearly indicates an implied equivalence between homosexuality and abuse.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Yes, and for this reason the word pederast is probably better suited to those that act on the attraction.
Actually, pederast is a better term in general whether the attraction is acted on or not, since the Greek ἔρως is specific for sexual love, while φιλία means friendship that's not necessarily or even mainly sexual.


Perhaps neither is accurate. Your preference that they be referred to as "gay" priests clearly indicates an implied equivalence between homosexuality and abuse.
It indicates no such thing, just that those traitorous priests who abuse teenaged boys are homosexual not pederastic.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 02:52 PM
You don't call a priest that abuses young girls a "straight" priest or a hetero priest because sexual orientation is not important. The important thing is the abuse.
It is, but it's also noteworthy that it's mostly teenage boys.


I hope you can see the lunacy in your logic. Next you'll be asking that they refer to all rapists on the news simply as heterosexual men rather than rapists since that is the predominant sexual orientation among rapists.
Uni feminazis have long claimed that all men are rapists. But they gave the abusing Clinton a free pass because he supported what early feminists denounced as "antenatal child murder" (http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/1999/fall/Fall99.pdf) a woman's right to choose.


For an educated man your stupidty often amazes me.
As a lefty, your stupidity never surprises me.

pax
12-11-2008, 02:52 PM
It indicates no such thing, just that those traitorous priests who abuse teenaged boys are homosexual not pederastic.

The objectionable thing about their behaviour is abuse of boys, not homosexuality. Homosexuality on its own is entirely irrelevant.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 03:27 PM
Uni feminazis have long claimed that all men are rapists. But they gave the abusing Clinton a free pass because he supported what early feminists denounced as "antenatal child murder" (http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/1999/fall/Fall99.pdf) a woman's right to choose.

Talk about unrealted Strawman!!!!

So I take it you agree with me that the term "gay priest" does not and cannot imply the priest sexually abuses people. And is therefore a useless tag for describing a priest that sexually abuses people.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 03:30 PM
...your stupidity never surprises me.

As expected, something that doesn't exist can't really surprise.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 04:02 PM
I disagree with your definition of the meaning of liberal in this context. Perhaps you grew up in a foreign tradition but the Australian concept of liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities. This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market. Both these fundamental tenets of out liberal democracy are necessary to allow the citizenship to actively participate in society and avoid the tyranny of majority which is the outcome of an unregulated system which is how you seem to define a liberal democracy.

If you want to find out more about what liberal democracy means in Australia I can recommend the Oxford Companion to Australian Politics.

FYI, this definition of liberalism came from the great thinkers of European/Anglo-Saxon tradition. Unfortunately, Russian philosophical school, despite it's achievements in other areas, did not concern itself much with the problems of individual liberty (either personal or economical).

If you want to find out more, I can recommend reading the work of great economists from Adam Smith of 18th century to Milton Friedman of 20th century.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 04:16 PM
FYI, this definition of liberalism came from the great thinkers of European/Anglo-Saxon tradition. Unfortunately, Russian philosophical school, despite it's achievements in other areas, did not concern itself much with the problems of individual liberty (either personal or economical).

If you want to find out more, I can recommend reading the work of great economists from Adam Smith of 18th century to Milton Friedman of 20th century.

For a modern perspective of economic freedom Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen would be a good choice. Smith and Friedman are becoming a bit outdated.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Smith and Friedman are becoming a bit outdated.
I doubt they will ever be outdated.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 04:34 PM
I doubt they will ever be outdated.

Well certain parts are such as Friedman's theory of perfect "crowding out", that has empirically shown to be incorrect. Other Friedman initiatives such as targeting money supply growth have also been abandoned.

Smith's concept of the "Inivisible Hand" has been largely reconsidered in the face of market externalities and assymetries of information. It's not that there theoris have been discounted more that they have been considerably improved upon

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 05:01 PM
Well certain parts are such as Friedman's theory of perfect "crowding out", that has empirically shown to be incorrect. Other Friedman initiatives such as targeting money supply growth have also been abandoned.
Yet his 30yo book Free To Choose has been well supported in subsequent years, as Thatcher (UK), Reagan (USA), Keating (Au), Douglas (NZ) and Laar (Estonia) carried out many of his free market ideas with much success. We can also look at the strong correlation between free economies and prosperity.

Friedman's point that advocates of government restriction on the eonomy really don't trust human freedom will never be outdated.


Smith's concept of the "Inivisible Hand" has been largely reconsidered in the face of market externalities and assymetries of information. It's not that there theoris have been discounted more that they have been considerably improved upon
Certainly they can be improved upon. But his major case is still sound: human selfishness is a reality, so we can't count on people's benevolence to provide us with our dinner but their regard for their own interests. He also refuted the protectionism that the likes of Comrade Obamov and Barnaby Joyce want to resurrect.

Friedman also extended it by proposing a corollary to Smith's invisible hand: that government bureacracies ostensibly for the public good end up serving special interest groups.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Yet his 30yo book Free To Choose has been well supported in subsequent years, as Thatcher (UK), Reagan (USA), Keating (Au), Douglas (NZ) and Laar (Estonia) carried out many of his free market ideas with much success. We can also look at the strong correlation between free economies and prosperity.

Friedman's point that advocates of government restriction on the eonomy really don't trust human freedom will never be outdated.


Certainly they can be improved upon. But his major case is still sound: human selfishness is a reality, so we can't count on people's benevolence to provide us with our dinner but their regard for their own interests. He also refuted the protectionism that the likes of Comrade Obamov and Barnaby Joyce want to resurrect.

Friedman also extended it by proposing a corollary to Smith's invisible hand: that government bureacracies ostensibly for the public good end up serving special interest groups.

I didn't say that they didn't make significant contributions to economics. They are certainly two of the all-time great economists. Was just reflecting that most modern economics theories have encompassed and built upon their theories. Therefore unless you have penchant for economic history or plenty of time on your hands, you are better off reading some of the more modern stuff.

Getting back on-topic I am still waiting to for someone to explain to me the negative effects of re-defining term marriage to include same sex couples.

So far we have the cost of re-writting the legislation. Anything else?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 05:13 PM
I didn't say that they didn't make significant contributions to economics. They are certainly two of the all-time great economists. Was just reflecting that most modern economics theories have encompassed and built upon their theories. Therefore unless you have penchant for economic history or plenty of time on your hands, you are better off reading some of the more modern stuff.
Why? Some of the modern stuff ignores the wisdom of the older material. Otherwise we wouldn't have Obamov and Joyce in effect returning to the mercantilism that Smith discredited, or Chairman KRudd thinking that he can benefit the overall economy by picking winners which Bastiat demolished.


Getting back on-topic I am still waiting to for someone to explain to me the negative effects of re-defining term marriage to include same sex couples.
Why should I, unless you can get a majority to agree with your revisionism. Would you also like to re-define "mother" as parent of either sex?

pax
12-11-2008, 06:07 PM
To those who oppose Gay marriage: do you also oppose civil unions for gay couples with equivalent legal protections as marriage?

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 07:20 PM
It's a perfectly good answer.

No, it's a completely vacuous one. It's not even proper conservatism, which stands for caution about change rather than automatic opposition to it.


Most people still don't want to redefine the word, which is why the Gay-stapo has to resort to activist courts.

So now we have an argument from popularity against reapplying a definition, from the same side of the debate that complains about a mythical monolith they call "the gay movement" appropriating "gay", even though the added meaning for that word is now very widely accepted.


Not at all. A government-funded organization entails means that money is forcibly coerced from others to give to it. A tax exempt organization entails that the government doesn't coerce money from it.

So? If the government gives a grant it has less money than if it doesn't give a grant, meaning it needs a greater share from taxpayers. If a government gives tax exempt status to an organisation it has less money than if it doesn't give tax exempt status , again meaning it needs a greater share from (other) taxpayers. The only exception is if taxing the organisation in question would cause it not to exist (and claims to that effect need to be viewed very sceptically.)


You may be a fundy atheist if.... (http://www.tektonics.org/af/fundyath.html)
You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals.

I have no personal interest in the institution in question, and also note that quite a few people get married for extremely bad reasons. However, I don't think it is obsolete for those who want it and can make it work.

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 07:24 PM
Why should I, unless you can get a majority to agree with your revisionism. Would you also like to re-define "mother" as parent of either sex?

It's not my revisionism. I couldn't really careless either way, as far as I can tell it has no effect on me.

Just want to try to understand why there is such strong opposition to redefining the term marriage to include same sex couples. Whether the arguement against is based on traditions or tangible negative side-effects.

I have no problem with language being re-defined, I am sure I'll be able to adapt and still communicate aptly (well at least at the same mediocre level I do now).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 07:52 PM
To those who oppose Gay marriage: do you also oppose civil unions for gay couples with equivalent legal protections as marriage?
No, unless "equivalent legal protections as marriage" includes something I am not aware of.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 08:00 PM
Ask Karnick, not me

In your view is Karnick wrong?


They all have two things in common:
1. Between man and woman (or women)
2. Children is the major issue they are trying to address.

Children are certainly a major focus of marriage for many people but there are others who marry with no intention whatsoever of ever having children, or who marry well after having children, including by a different partner.


Actually, if you voice your objections against homosexuality too loudly in, say, Canada, you might find Polizei not only at your door, but in your house as well.

I have no such objections to voice! However, again, this is a separate issue from gay marriage. What we were talking about is whether or not people are allowed to refuse to recognise marriages, and that is a different issue to whether people are allowed to scream homophobic rants on the nearest street corner. It is quite clear that except in certain institutional contexts where there is a risk of illegal discrimination, people have great freedom to decide whether they consider someone else's marriage to be meaningful or not. Someone saying that they don't consider gay marriages to be real marriages as a matter of personal opinion would not violate any law anywhere.


Let me ask two questions:
What right homosexuals do not have that married families do have?

The right to call themselves married in the eyes of the law. That right is valued symbolically by some would-be gay married couples, as a matter of fairness irrespective of whether it conveys any actual advantage or not.

There are also many legal rights reserved for marriage, which can be extended to registered civil unions in those states that have them (not all states do). These include issues like the financial resolution of the end of a relationship in a case where one party is left unable to support themselves. (This probably will be extended to unregistered relationships as well, but this hasn't happened yet.)


I would actually prefer if government butt out completely out of marriage business. Marriage (at least in a free country) should be a contract between a man and a woman.

This position is incoherent. On the one hand you are saying the government should butt out. On the other hand you are saying the government should interfere if the marrying partners are of the same sex. This is not a position that indicates that you support a free country on this issue.


Unfortunately, homosexual activists are not satisfied with repelling the laws that used to discriminate against them. Now they want to use government to discriminate in their favour. same-sex union called "marriage" is part of that campaign.

How is it discrimination in their favour if they are simply given the same right on this particular issue (the right to marry) that mixed-sex couples have? It isn't.


To be a liberal democracy (as opposed to social democracy, which we have at the moment), we need to stop government subsidies of any lifestyle. That way there will be no discrimination against any minorities (do what you want, but with your own money).

Again this is off the topic of gay marriage but in any case this doesn't necessarily follow. A liberal democracy is one in which a certain set of rights are held to be inviolate and reserved from the interference of the majority or the government. What rights are reserved varies greatly but typically they are basic liberal rights that aim to guarantee participation, personal safety, justice and fair treatment. The democratic side of the equation sorts out the rest. Who pays how much tax and what the tax is spent on is generally not argued to be one of those liberal rights, since there is certainly no right to freedom from paying tax. Although there are things the government is not supposed to fund in a liberal democracy (eg the government is not supposed to spend money establishing a state religion, but some governments find backdoor ways to do things like that) the list is a very short one.


Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
- Do not initiate force against other people.
- Do not initiate force against other people's property.

The rest can be derived from those principles.

Liberal is about what government can do.
Democracy is how the government is formed.

Social democracy disregards second principle of liberal society, therefore it is not liberal.

Actually the government in a liberal democracy is fully entitled to initiate force against people's property for the purpose of funding at least a basic set of activities. By your argument above, any government that funds a police force, an army, a court system or infrastructure using money obtained by forcible taxation is not a "liberal democracy" - in which case the only possible liberal democracies would actually be utopian anarchies.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 08:05 PM
“Disparaging remarks about gays, lesbians and adulterers” (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=df4b3dac-45c2-4fff-842b-b2d5b0cb39de)Even though he was off duty at the time, LAPD demotes veteran cop for quoting scriptural passages against homosexuality

Off topic. I'm reluctant to start splitting stuff off this thread as one of the main protagonists but I would like it if people tried to keep their remarks somewhere near relevant to the question of gay marriage rather than trying to turn the thread into a general rantfest about their view of "gay activism".

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 08:14 PM
'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220)

[..]

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs.

"This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity," he said. "The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.' Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians."

Barber provides no proof that anonymous internet posters venting their frustrations and flirting with violent radicalism on this issue are "homosexuals" and indeed many of them will not be. Some may even just be trolls.

Naturally, I strongly disapprove of the proposals for violent response. At the same time, if illiberal so-called "Christians" refuse to respect the right of gay people to marry then they have no leg to stand on if their own rights are not recognised in turn, so if the responses bother them they should take a good hard look at their own consistency, or glaring lack thereof.


"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."

:lol:

Anyone taking that one seriously should also add tinfoil hats to their shopping list.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 08:29 PM
Barber provides no proof that anonymous internet posters venting their frustrations and flirting with violent radicalism on this issue are "homosexuals" and indeed many of them will not be. Some may even just be trolls.
Maybe so, but not likely. But if they were professing to be Christians, the Leftmedia would be baying at Christian intolerance.


Naturally, I strongly disapprove of the proposals for violent response.
Good, but then you try to mitigate this disapproval.


At the same time, if illiberal so-called "Christians"
Where does a misotheist like you get off putting Christians in scare quotes for any reason, esp. as Christ explicitly stated (Matthew 19:4–6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2019:4-6;&version=31;)):


"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So it's the churchians who think there is such a think as gay "marriage" who are the "Christians", since they are contradicting Christ Himself.


refuse to respect the right of gay people to marry then they have no leg to stand on if their own rights are not recognised in turn, so if the responses bother them they should take a good hard look at their own consistency, or glaring lack thereof.
Christians aren't threatening violence against gays or threatening to burn down gay bars.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 08:31 PM
Off topic. I'm reluctant to start splitting stuff off this thread as one of the main protagonists but I would like it if people tried to keep their remarks somewhere near relevant to the question of gay marriage rather than trying to turn the thread into a general rantfest about their view of "gay activism".
Why? So many are accusing the opponents of gay "marriage" of "intolerance", so it was only fair to document some intolerance by some of the supporters.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Why should I, unless you can get a majority to agree with your revisionism.

Because a group in society have articulated a prima facie case for redefining the word. The onus is on you to provide a valid reason for opposing that case if you wish your opposition to doing so to be seen as logically well grounded. Whether or not the majority agree with them is not a valid reason.


Would you also like to re-define "mother" as parent of either sex?

Irrelevant because there is neither a prima facie case for such a redefinition being made, nor any reason for such a redefinition to occur - what benefit would such a redefinition provide to anyone?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2008, 08:40 PM
Because a group in society have articulated a prima facie case for redefining the word. The onus is on you to provide a valid reason for opposing that case if you wish your opposition to doing so to be seen as logically well grounded. Whether or not the majority agree with them is not a valid reason.
No, the onus is on the proponents of re-definition to justify a change from thousands of years of usage. But those of your ilk can't get your way by the ballot box, so have to resort to leftist courts.


Irrelevant because there is neither a prima facie case for such a redefinition being made, nor any reason for such a redefinition to occur — what benefit would such a redefinition provide to anyone?
Already, the Gay-stapo wants "mother" and "father" on forms to be replaced by "parent 1" and "parent 2".

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 08:55 PM
In your view is Karnick wrong?
Haven't read him(or her), don't even who is this. Therefore I cannot answer this question


Children are certainly a major focus of marriage for many people but there are others who marry with no intention whatsoever of ever having children, or who marry well after having children, including by a different partner.
I agree that people marry for other reasons then children as well. However, children are raison-d-etra of the institute of marriage. Union between man and a woman can, under certain circumstances, produce children. Further detailasation (like both parties being fertile, etc.) is not practicable.
Union between two men or between two women cannot produce children under any circumstances (excluding external interference:D ).


I have no such objections to voice! However, again, this is a separate issue from gay marriage.
I wish it was!


What we were talking about is whether or not people are allowed to refuse to recognise marriages, and that is a different issue to whether people are allowed to scream homophobic rants on the nearest street corner. It is quite clear that except in certain institutional contexts where there is a risk of illegal discrimination, people have great freedom to decide whether they consider someone else's marriage to be meaningful or not. Someone saying that they don't consider gay marriages to be real marriages as a matter of personal opinion would not violate any law anywhere.
Do you agree that using the same word for two different things makes it harder to distinguish them?


The right to call themselves married in the eyes of the law. That right is valued symbolically by some would-be gay married couples, as a matter of fairness irrespective of whether it conveys any actual advantage or not.

So you agree that an advantage to same-sex partners is symbolic only?
Many same sex couple do not think or feel that their union is inferior to marriage. My guess is that couldn't care less what it's called.
If they want it to be called by the same name as marriage, they might still have inferiority complex.


There are also many legal rights reserved for marriage, which can be extended to registered civil unions in those states that have them (not all states do). These include issues like the financial resolution of the end of a relationship in a case where one party is left unable to support themselves.
No objections at all.


(This probably will be extended to unregistered relationships as well, but this hasn't happened yet.)
That would be wrong. If parties do not want to enter an agreement, why force them to?



This position is incoherent. On the one hand you are saying the government should butt out. On the other hand you are saying the government should interfere if the marrying partners are of the same sex. This is not a position that indicates that you support a free country on this issue.

Wrong. If government did not dictate the content of marriage agreement, there would not be an issue.


How is it discrimination in their favour if they are simply given the same right on this particular issue (the right to marry) that mixed-sex couples have? It isn't.


Kevin, I am sure you know the difference between negative and positive rights. They have right to live together as they are pleased. By requesting to have their union called "marriage" they infringe on the right of married families to differ from homosexual couples.

Fortunately it is not a problem in Australia (at least not yet). However, the level of activism (including judicial one) in US is much higher and Californians felt threatened (quite rightly so). As a result they voted to preserve the original meaning of the word. I am not aware of any other rights homosexual partners were deprived of.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-11-2008, 08:57 PM
Off topic. I'm reluctant to start splitting stuff off this thread as one of the main protagonists but I would like it if people tried to keep their remarks somewhere near relevant to the question of gay marriage rather than trying to turn the thread into a general rantfest about their view of "gay activism".
Not quite off topic. Do not forget that referendum in American states was a direct response to "gay activism".

TheJoker
12-11-2008, 09:08 PM
No, the onus is on the proponents of re-definition to justify a change from thousands of years of usage.

I believe their argument is that a re-definition has postive benefits for them and no negative effects on anybody else. To me that sounds like a valid argument, hence why I asked if their where any negative effects of re-definition.

Aaron Guthrie
12-11-2008, 09:16 PM
Again, the context is the law. Third point, that the law defines a word a certain way doesn't change the common usage of the word.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 09:33 PM
Haven't read him(or her), don't even who is this. Therefore I cannot answer this question

Jono linked to Karnick's article earlier in the thread.


I agree that people marry for other reasons then children as well. However, children are raison-d-etra of the institute of marriage.

Actually the institution has many different purposes for different people. Children may be the most common one but they are far from the only one and to claim that something is the reason for an institution when it is not even the only common reason is simply incorrect.


Union between man and a woman can, under certain circumstances, produce children.

That depends on the man and the woman. For instance if two seventy year olds (one male and one female) marry then those two seventy year olds will not have children without "external interference" (adoption being the only way) but I do not see you saying that seventy-year-olds should not be permitted to marry each other.

Furthermore, if your argument is about children then whether the children are to be born naturally, to be born by artificial insemenation or surrogacy (both required not uncommonly by heterosexual couples!) or to be adopted is utterly irrelevant. If you are saying marriage exists to protect child-rearing then the issue is whether marriage provides a good chance of a stable upbringing for the child, not how the child was conceived. Many heterosexual marriages fall way short of this ideal in any case.


I wish it was!

Actually it is but some seem determined to tie it in with other issues simply because those other issues are sometimes advanced by the same people. Is there something too hard about accepting that even if you don't like every part of an "agenda", some parts of it still, even despite the gains that have been made, remain justified?


Do you agree that using the same word for two different things makes it harder to distinguish them?

No. There are many cases where a word carries two very distinct meanings without any problems. But that is irrelevant anyway as here we are only talking about applying a word in its usual meaning but in a new context, not using it for a different context. If applying the word "marriage" to a relationship that is less likely to produce children bothers you for that reason, then be consistent and cease applying it to those heterosexual marriages that are not going to produce children as well.


So you agree that an advantage to same-sex partners is symbolic only?

That's certainly not what I said. One thing I will say is that whatever the legal differences between jurisdictions in terms of whether there are any other advantages, there will always be the symbolic argument. And it's not "just" symbolism when it is also an issue of personal liberty and equal rights.


Many same sex couple do not think or feel that their union is inferior to marriage. My guess is that couldn't care less what it's called.

That is irrelevant because while it is certainly true (just as many mixed sex couples have exactly the same reason for not marrying) there are others who do want that right.


If they want it to be called by the same name as marriage, they might still have inferiority complex.

That is nothing but unsubstantiated unqualified psychobabble. To me, their assertion that their marriage is the equal of a mixed-sex one suggests anything but a feeling of inferiority!


That would be wrong. If parties do not want to enter an agreement, why force them to?

Separate issue. I just mentioned the current proposed changes re de facto relationships of two or more years' standing - wasn't taking a view for or against those changes.


Wrong. If government did not dictate the content of marriage agreement, there would not be an issue.

OK, so do you support the government abolishing all legal recognition of marriage and people being allowed to marry whoever they wish (provided that that person is of marriageable age and consents)?

Whatever may or may not be said for such a position it provides no reason to support governments recognising mixed-sex marriages but not gay ones as is currently the case.


Kevin, I am sure you know the difference between negative and positive rights. They have right to live together as they are pleased. By requesting to have their union called "marriage" they infringe on the right of married families to differ from homosexual couples.

This is false. Mixed-sex married families already differ from gay families by being mixed-sex families and not gay families. Your argument is no more valid than going back 100 years and saying that women who request to vote infringe on the right of men to differ from women, or going back further and saying that slaves who request freedom infringe on the right of masters to differ from slaves. If a right to be different is premised upon an illiberal inequality then that right is no right at all (neither positive nor negative, simply bogus and requiring immediate abolition.)


However, the level of activism (including judicial one) in US is much higher and Californians felt threatened (quite rightly so).

You seem to be suggesting the vote was not just about gay marriage but a backlash against gay activism more generally.

If that is so then it is likely that some who voted for the ban are actually not opposed to gay marriage, and therefore the argument that the majority oppose gay marriage is much weaker.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 09:43 PM
No, the onus is on the proponents of re-definition to justify a change from thousands of years of usage.

They've already done that by showing that the current usage reflects bias, which opponents have failed to justify.


But those of your ilk can't get your way by the ballot box, so have to resort to leftist courts.

And I completely approve of resort to courts (leftist or otherwise) to obtain equal liberties that the ballot box should not be entitled to veto.


Already, the Gay-stapo wants "mother" and "father" on forms to be replaced by "parent 1" and "parent 2".

So? Not remotely comparable to a proposal to redefine the word "mother"; simply a proposal to redesign forms to remedy their shortcomings in reflecting the full range of custodial relationships existing.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2008, 09:47 PM
Why? So many are accusing the opponents of gay "marriage" of "intolerance", so it was only fair to document some intolerance by some of the supporters.

There are few movements that can say that none of their members ever pursue their cause in an illiberal way, but that is not a valid argument against the liberties that such movements seek.

If you were running a thread discussing whether Christians who were being denied a particular religious freedom should have it, would you appreciate having wholly unrelated articles about illiberal attitudes of some "Christians" posted to it?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2008, 09:30 AM
Actually the institution has many different purposes for different people. Children may be the most common one but they are far from the only one and to claim that something is the reason for an institution when it is not even the only common reason is simply incorrect.

Kevin, I a have a feeling you did not read my post carefully. I am sure you know the difference between raison d'etra ("reason for being") and "the only reason"


That depends on the man and the woman. For instance if two seventy year olds (one male and one female) marry then those two seventy year olds will not have children without "external interference" (adoption being the only way) but I do not see you saying that seventy-year-olds should not be permitted to marry each other.

Again, you missed (and omitted when quoting) one sentence from my post that already addressed your reply. Missed phrase highlighted:


Union between man and a woman can, under certain circumstances, produce children. Further detailasation (like both parties being fertile, etc.) is not practicable.
Union between two men or between two women cannot produce children under any circumstances (excluding external interference ).



Furthermore, if your argument is about children then whether the children are to be born naturally, to be born by artificial insemenation or surrogacy (both required not uncommonly by heterosexual couples!) or to be adopted is utterly irrelevant. If you are saying marriage exists to protect child-rearing then the issue is whether marriage provides a good chance of a stable upbringing for the child, not how the child was conceived. Many heterosexual marriages fall way short of this ideal in any case.

Any alternative to natural birth you mentioned are just the substitutes. Therefore, the optimal environment for children is the one that resembles natural as close as possible (a full family with a mother and a father). If it's not always attainable, it is not a reason to abandon it as a goal.


Actually it is but some seem determined to tie it in with other issues simply because those other issues are sometimes advanced by the same people. Is there something too hard about accepting that even if you don't like every part of an "agenda", some parts of it still, even despite the gains that have been made, remain justified?

The part we are discussing is not justified anyway. If successful, those activists would then try to advance other parts of their agenda, that are even less justified.


No. There are many cases where a word carries two very distinct meanings without any problems. But that is irrelevant anyway as here we are only talking about applying a word in its usual meaning but in a new context, not using it for a different context. If applying the word "marriage" to a relationship that is less likely to produce children bothers you for that reason, then be consistent and cease applying it to those heterosexual marriages that are not going to produce children as well.

Addressed already, see above.


Whatever may or may not be said for such a position it provides no reason to support governments recognising mixed-sex marriages but not gay ones as is currently the case.

There is a simple reason:
What you called "mixed-sex marriage" is actually a marriage.
What you called "gay marriage" is not a marriage.



This is false. Mixed-sex married families already differ from gay families by being mixed-sex families and not gay families.

Exactly. That's the whole point. They are different. There are currently different terms to define them. If they are different, why do you want to make them look and sound the same?

Your argument is no more valid than going back 100 years and saying that women who request to vote infringe on the right of men to differ from women, or going back further and saying that slaves who request freedom infringe on the right of masters to differ from slaves. If a right to be different is premised upon an illiberal inequality then that right is no right at all (neither positive nor negative, simply bogus and requiring immediate abolition.)

Right to vote is a right that should be accessible to everyone. Same applies to right to marry. Same applies to right to enter into civil union.
Indeed, homosexuals have right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Heterosexuals have right to enter into same-sex relationship with someone of their gender.
As for master and slaves, I see no relevance.

Rincewind
13-11-2008, 10:22 AM
If you want to find out more, I can recommend reading the work of great economists from Adam Smith of 18th century to Milton Friedman of 20th century.

A Scot from 200+ years ago and a conservative American hardly provide a balanced view as to how the term liberal democracy should be interpreted in 21t century Australia.

The Australian concept of a liberal democracy is shaped no the realisation that democracy and liberalism can have contradictory goals and therefore to enable liberalism the government has the responsibility to regulate the system. The invisible hand of the market will not perform that job and such regulation is not the same as and should not be confused with a social democracy.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2008, 12:26 PM
A Scot from 200+ years ago and a conservative American hardly provide a balanced view as to how the term liberal democracy should be interpreted in 21t century Australia.

It's classic, Rincewind, it's classic. I understand your point that being Scott and American devalues their work, but you still might find something useful.
Universal laws of economy apply to Australia as much as too the rest of the world


The Australian concept of a liberal democracy is shaped no the realisation that democracy and liberalism can have contradictory goals and therefore to enable liberalism the government has the responsibility to regulate the system. The invisible hand of the market will not perform that job and such regulation is not the same as and should not be confused with a social democracy.

For starters, you can try to give your definition (if you do not accept mine) of what is (not what you want it to be, not what the goal of it, but what is):
1. Liberalism
2. Democracy
3. Liberal Democracy.

You might also try to define:
4. Socialism
5. Social democracy.

I prefer to discuss substance rather then empty slogans.

Rincewind
13-11-2008, 02:35 PM
It's classic, Rincewind, it's classic. I understand your point that being Scott and American devalues their work, but you still might find something useful.
Universal laws of economy apply to Australia as much as too the rest of the world



For starters, you can try to give your definition (if you do not accept mine) of what is (not what you want it to be, not what the goal of it, but what is):
1. Liberalism
2. Democracy
3. Liberal Democracy.

You might also try to define:
4. Socialism
5. Social democracy.

I prefer to discuss substance rather then empty slogans.

Sounds like you want me to do a lot of work and it is really incidental to the main point of this thread.

Regarding the points above and your original definition of liberal democracy, I think it is overly simplistic to get the definition of liberalism and democracy, slap them together and say you have captured what is meant by the expression liberal democracy. I believe I have given a reasonable definition of liberal democracy and Australia conforms to that definition.


Regarding same-sex marriage you said something along the lines of that "children is the major issue". Given that many children today are being raised by same-sex couples. How does preventing same-sex marriage protect those (or any other) children?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2008, 03:53 PM
Regarding the points above and your original definition of liberal democracy, I think it is overly simplistic to get the definition of liberalism and democracy, slap them together and say you have captured what is meant by the expression liberal democracy.
Defining liberalism and democracy is not sufficient to define liberal democracy, but necessary. You must be familiar with the concept of necessary and sufficient condition.


I believe I have given a reasonable definition of liberal democracy and Australia conforms to that definition.

I haven't seen. Would you like to repeat it?


Regarding same-sex marriage you said something along the lines of that "children is the major issue". Given that many children today are being raised by same-sex couples. How does preventing same-sex marriage protect those (or any other) children?
What I said about children was to explain an underlying difference between a marriage and same-sex cohabitat.
To you question:
Just by itself - it does not. It a matter of adoption laws.
When a child is adopted, an environment as close to natural is preferred, which means it's much better for the child to be brought up by a married family rather then same-sex couple.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 04:11 PM
Just by itself — it does not. It a matter of adoption laws.

When a child is adopted, an environment as close to natural is preferred, which means it's much better for the child to be brought up by a married family rather then same-sex couple.
The Gay-Stapo in Boston were so spiteful that they forced Catholic Charities, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, to close down since they wouldn't refer kids to same-sex couples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp). Now they are stuck in orphanages or bounced around through foster homes.

Rincewind
13-11-2008, 04:18 PM
Defining liberalism and democracy is not sufficient to define liberal democracy, but necessary. You must be familiar with the concept of necessary and sufficient condition.

Certainly but I wouldn't class definitions of these terms necessary or sufficient to a definition of 'liberal democracy'.


I haven't seen. Would you like to repeat it?

#55


What I said about children was to explain an underlying difference between a marriage and same-sex cohabitat.
To you question:
Just by itself - it does not. It a matter of adoption laws.
When a child is adopted, an environment as close to natural is preferred, which means it's much better for the child to be brought up by a married family rather then same-sex couple.

The marriage laws and the adoption laws are entirely different. According to Wiki (although it may be wrong) joint petition same-sex adoption is legal in ACT and WA. Single petition is legal in ACT, WA and NSW and stepchild adoption is legal in WA, ACT, Vic and Tas.

It is also legal in many more counties than just those that allow same-sex marriage. Wiki lists Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and some parts of the United States.

TheJoker
13-11-2008, 04:51 PM
When a child is adopted, an environment as close to natural is preferred, which means it's much better for the child to be brought up by a married family rather then same-sex couple.

Firstly to make such an assertion you should have some reliable evidence such as a long-term academic study. Otherwise you should say "In my opinion...".

Secondly adoption is not the only way for a same sex couple to acquire a child, they simply need to enlist the help of willing person of the opposite sex male or female.

If you have credible evidence that a child growing up with same-sex parents is damaging to the child, the you would be right to protest against such situations. But that has nothing to do with question of same-sex marriage.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Firstly to make such an assertion you should have some reliable evidence such as a long-term academic study. Otherwise you should say "In my opinion...".
Stuff academic studies. How about all human history? It's the proponents of gay "marriage" who want to change the meaning of words, in a way beyond even the wishes of the leftist fruitloops in California.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 05:28 PM
Kevin, I a have a feeling you did not read my post carefully. I am sure you know the difference between raison d'etra ("reason for being") and "the only reason"

Yes but I dispute that it is either. I believe it is extremely likely that the institution of marriage would exist even if it made no contribution to the rearing of children. Many of the other reasons would themselves prove sufficient for it to exist.

As to whether it the rearing of children was the one and only, or even the greatly predominant, original reason for the institution of marriage, I suspect the answer to that question is lost in the mists of time and there is no point speculating about it.


Again, you missed (and omitted when quoting) one sentence from my post that already addressed your reply. Missed phrase highlighted:

I omitted it because I had no idea what its relevance was, "detailisation" not being a word in any language I'm familiar with. If you are saying that drawing lines limiting the scope of heterosexual marriage would be impractical, I disagree. Firstly, we already have lines that limit the minimum age at which people can marry, although some want to marry before that and would be allowed to do so in other cultures. Secondly, lines could be easily drawn to reduce the risk of childless marriage, without eliminating it entirely, if that was desired. If we really wanted to be so ludicrously illiberal as to confine the right of marriage to those ages within which childbirth was seriously likely it would be just as easy to draw a line and say "no women over 60 are permitted to marry", as it is to draw a line and say "no same sex couples can marry". Or there could be a law that said any marriage that failed to produce children in, say, ten years was automatically cancelled. The reasons we do not have such laws are that they would be grotesquely illiberal and that marriage has other valid purposes, for some couples, besides the rearing of children. Likewise, laws against gay marriage are grotesquely illiberal.


Any alternative to natural birth you mentioned are just the substitutes. Therefore, the optimal environment for children is the one that resembles natural as close as possible (a full family with a mother and a father).

This "therefore" is just a non sequitur. Whether there is actually any net intrinsic disadvantage for a child in being raised by two women instead of a mother and a father, for example, is a matter of specialised and complex debate. Yet we already know that there are many kinds of easily definable heterosexual situations in which any child born will likely be seriously disadvantaged and yet we do not attempt to stop such heterosexual couples from marrying and/or breeding (except sometimes in cases of extreme mental impairment of the prossible parent.) If we want to restrict gay marriages on the grounds of the welfare of any children that might be raised then why not ban all marriages where both parents are unemployed or have criminal records or IQs below 100 while we are at it?


The part we are discussing is not justified anyway. If successful, those activists would then try to advance other parts of their agenda, that are even less justified.

Then you can oppose those parts then and show that you really know where a line should be drawn. As it is, you're using the fear that a movement will have time free to campaign for something in the future as a reason for resisting what it is campaigning for now, when it is actually irrelevant to the merit of the current proposal.


There is a simple reason:
What you called "mixed-sex marriage" is actually a marriage.
What you called "gay marriage" is not a marriage.

This response is simply circular. As I pointed out to Jono, if you answer the question "Why not extend the boundaries of an institution to a new group" with something along the lines of "The boundaries of that institution do not currently include that group" then all you are doing is describing the status quo. You are failing to answer the normative question. It is not even conservatism, it is just heads-in-the-sand stonewalling.


Exactly. That's the whole point. They are different. There are currently different terms to define them. If they are different, why do you want to make them look and sound the same?

Because while there are differences that those inclined to do so may continue to notice, these differences are merely in the nature of being different versions of the same sort of thing. We do not have a problem with calling heterosexual marriages for companionship in later life "marriages" although they differ far more radically from the sort of marriages entered into by 20-year-olds who want to start a family than either will differ from certain examples of gay marriage.


Right to vote is a right that should be accessible to everyone.

Indeed, that is the modern understanding. But 100 years ago it was not and arguments that it should be accessible to everyone were met with derision along the lines that voting was an institution for men and women couldn't possibly handle it without their brains collapsing. Arguments that marriage is an institution for mixed-sex couples only are in the same basket and will probably eventually go the same way.


Same applies to right to marry. Same applies to right to enter into civil union.
Indeed, homosexuals have right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

I don't know why you bother saying that since it is quite clear that that is not the sort of version of that right most gay people who are inclined to marry want - for obvious reasons. The same sort of line as you use there was used by those who wanted to ban interracial marriages - "black people can marry other black people, who says they don't have marriage rights?" No doubt opponents of interracial marriage also tried to argue that marriage between a black person and a white person was not a real marriage. We now know otherwise.


Heterosexuals have right to enter into same-sex relationship with someone of their gender.
As for master and slaves, I see no relevance.

Oh well. I'm sure others can see the point that I am making. :D

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 06:01 PM
The same sort of line as you use there was used by those who wanted to ban interracial marriages — "black people can marry other black people, who says they don't have marriage rights?" No doubt opponents of interracial marriage also tried to argue that marriage between a black person and a white person was not a real marriage. We now know otherwise.
Rather, we know it's a specious comparison, considering the biological meaninglessness of "race", as opposed to clear biological differences between men and women. Blacks clearly weren't buying this faulty analogy either.

Desmond
13-11-2008, 06:13 PM
As to whether it the rearing of children was the one and only, or even the greatly predominant, original reason for the institution of marriage, I suspect the answer to that question is lost in the mists of time and there is no point speculating about it.FWIW I reckon the original meaning was to tranfer ownership of the woman to the man.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2008, 06:50 PM
This response is simply circular. As I pointed out to Jono, if you answer the question "Why not extend the boundaries of an institution to a new group" with something along the lines of "The boundaries of that institution do not currently include that group" then all you are doing is describing the status quo. You are failing to answer the normative question. It is not even conservatism, it is just heads-in-the-sand stonewalling.

Wrong analogy. If groups are different, they should not be equated.


Because while there are differences that those inclined to do so may continue to notice, these differences are merely in the nature of being different versions of the same sort of thing.

Only to he extent that women and men are different versions of human. However, there inherent differences, especially when it comes to sex and reproduction. Those particular differences explain other difference (physical, mental, behavioural, etc.)
Given gender differences between man and a woman sexual relationship between them are different from homosexual relationship (I sincerely hope at least that is obvious).

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 06:59 PM
Given gender differences between man and a woman sexual relationship between them are different from homosexual relationship (I sincerely hope at least that is obvious).
Most unusual: lefties insist that differences between men and women are conditioned by society, but homosexuality is inborn.

Crossfire (Axiom)
13-11-2008, 07:35 PM
FWIW I reckon the original meaning was to tranfer ownership of the woman to the man.
At the same time as transferring wealth to the woman ?!
(See the family law courts ! )

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 07:50 PM
FWIW I reckon the original meaning was to tranfer ownership of the woman to the man.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was in the mix quite prominently.


Wrong analogy. If groups are different, they should not be equated.

You are calling something an analogy that was not even an analogy at all. It was simply a description of the debate. Your line on this different/same stuff (with no intermediate) is very simplistic and is empirically false. As I already pointed out, marriages can differ from each other in some respects while resembling each other in others. The term "marriage" recognises the common aspect of people committing to each other in a formalised sense with State recognition as such. If you want to add qualifiers to that term to stress all the different versions, eg first marriage, second marriage, twilight marriage, shotgun marriage, marriage of convenience, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, closed marriage, open marriage, childless marriage, marriage with 6 kids under the age of 7, arranged marriage, romantic marriage, marriage for the sake of the kids, gay marriage or whatever then that is fine. But to say that two items from this list are just different and not the same at all, while denying the very significant respect in which they are the same is simply incorrect. Again, they are different versions of the same kind of thing.


Only to he extent that women and men are different versions of human.

No, my point was nothing to do with that. What I was saying is that there are already very many different versions of marriage and gay marriage is just another one to add to the list.


Defining liberalism and democracy is not sufficient to define liberal democracy, but necessary. You must be familiar with the concept of necessary and sufficient condition.

Actually the meaning of "liberalism" was always vague and has drifted so much that its relevance to the term "liberal democracy" is now about zero. The term one really needs to understand (and you probably do have a good understanding of it, shame you can't apply it to this issue) is libertarian. A liberal democracy is basically a democracy that is subject to elements of overriding libertarianism in certain areas (but not necessarily in others).


When a child is adopted, an environment as close to natural is preferred, which means it's much better for the child to be brought up by a married family rather then same-sex couple.

What do you really mean by "natural" here?

If the term "natural" has the kind of meaning usually given to it by those who use the simplistic natural/artificial divide, then the "natural" state for a human child includes:

* no dentistry or modern medicine
* no access to processed foods
* no immunisation
* no fluoridation in the water
* clothing made from animal skins (etc)

In short, if someone wants the most natural environment for their adopted child they can go rear it in a cave and dress it in kangaroo skins; it probably won't do very well.

If what you really mean by "natural" is something like "statistically normal" (ie that an adopted child should be reared in an environment like that it would have been reared in otherwise) then that is a different matter. But even if being raised in such an environment is an intrinsic good for the child (and if so, where's the evidence?) there would still be some same-sex families which were better equipped to raise a child than some mixed-sex families that might want to do so.


Rather, we know it's a specious comparison, considering the biological meaninglessness of "race", as opposed to clear biological differences between men and women.

So are you saying that if "race" was biologically meaningful then it would be a valid comparison to the extent of those differences justifying a ban on interracial marriage? If not then I can't see why you bother raising this objection and suspect it is irrelevant to the issue. Also note that those trying to use the biological differences between men and women to argue against women voting failed dismally, just as those trying to use the biological differences between mixed-sex and same-sex couples to argue against the latter marrying will also fail dismally.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 08:26 PM
So are you saying that if "race" was biologically meaningful then it would be a valid comparison to the extent of those differences justifying a ban on interracial marriage?
What's the point of a counter-factual. The prohibition against interracial marriage seems to be a recent and localized aberration anyway.


If not then I can't see why you bother raising this objection and suspect it is irrelevant to the issue.
I'm not the one making comparisons between bans on interracial marriage, which was a genuine marriage as it's always been understood, and resising attempts to re-define marriage.


Also note that those trying to use the biological differences between men and women to argue against women voting failed dismally,
Because here, the biological differences can't justify denying the vote to one sex.

The feminazis now pretend there are no differences, and gender-norm occupations where male strength is an advantage. Kate O'Beirne's book Women Who Make the World Worse documents how standards have been dropped because feminazis have turned them into social engineering instead of life-saving. For example, O'Beirne mentions firefighters now dragging people down stairs as their heads bump on steps, because most women can't lift them onto their shoulders and we can't have sexist requirements like being able to do that. And stretcher carrying becomes a 4-person job instead of a 2-man job. I wouldn't mind hiring a woman who could meet the male strength standard, but lowering the standard costs lives. O'Beirne also cites a 5'1" grandmother guarding a criminal 6'+ linebacker who easily overpowered her and killed people before he was caught.


just as those trying to use the biological differences between mixed-sex and same-sex couples to argue against the latter marrying will also fail dismally.
If the re-definition couldn't even get support in leftist California, then there is no hope. The GOP should try to capitalize on that: the anti-redefinition vote was higher than Obamov's.

Crossfire (Axiom)
13-11-2008, 09:41 PM
the "natural" state for a human child includes:

* no dentistry or modern medicine
* no access to processed foods
* no immunisation
* no fluoridation in the water

Strangely , you have cited cases where the unnatural interventions have in fact been harmful .

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 09:59 PM
Strangely , you have cited cases where the unnatural interventions have in fact been harmful .

Each has its group of detractors who will drum up claimed evidence of harm (sometimes genuine, sometimes bogus) while disregarding evidence of often much greater benefits. That is not the same thing as the interventions being harmful overall. I realise that the processed food debate is a viable debate where there are pros and cons and people need to eat a balanced diet but objections to the others are frequently silly, overhyped and pseudoscientific.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 10:10 PM
What's the point of a counter-factual.

To expose the vacuity of your claimed difference by means of a very obvious thought experiment.


The prohibition against interracial marriage seems to be a recent and localized aberration anyway.

Similar prohibitions (typically on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity rather than "race" as such) exist today in many Islamic nations, as well as having popped up in several countries over the last 150 years. In the USA this aberration in one form or other persisted for around a century.


I'm not the one making comparisons between bans on interracial marriage, which was a genuine marriage as it's always been understood

Obviously it hasn't always been understood thus. While it was illegal it was in the same position as gay marriage is today. If you want to base your view on whether something is a marriage on its legality, then inter-racial marriages were not marriages in those countries at those times. Alternatively, if you want to say that inter-racial marriages were real marriages that were not locally legal, then the same applies to gay marriages now.


Because here, the biological differences can't justify denying the vote to one sex.

And nor do the biological differences justify denying the marriage right to same-sex couples, since there are many kinds of marriage that mixed-sex couples enter into that would suit some same-sex couples just as well.

*irrelevant diversion about so-called "feminazis" ignored.*


If the re-definition couldn't even get support in leftist California, then there is no hope. The GOP should try to capitalize on that: the anti-redefinition vote was higher than Obamov's.

California is only leftist by the standards of what is not at all a leftist country. Several countries including the one immediately to the US's north have fully legalised gay marriage. I predict this number will increase sharply over the next 20 years.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 10:47 PM
Similar prohibitions (typically on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity rather than "race" as such) exist today in many Islamic nations, as well as having popped up in several countries over the last 150 years. In the USA this aberration in one form or other persisted for around a century.
Racism was a legacy of the combination of slavery and trying to reconcile this with "all men are created equal". Brazil had slavery longer than the US, but no such Declaration of Independence, so racism was much less an issue there.


Obviously it hasn't always been understood thus. While it was illegal it was in the same position as gay marriage is today. If you want to base your view on whether something is a marriage on its legality, then inter-racial marriages were not marriages in those countries at those times. Alternatively, if you want to say that inter-racial marriages were real marriages that were not locally legal, then the same applies to gay marriages now.
It should be obvious that racial differences are nothing like sexual differences, to the argument is specious.


*irrelevant diversion about so-called "feminazis" ignored.*
Quite a good term actually, as is homonazis for those bullying and threatening dissenters. And it was far from irrelevant, since it was about those trying to deny real differences between the sexes, whereas race is a biologically meaningless term.


California is only leftist by the standards of what is not at all a leftist country.
San Francisco is loopy left.


Several countries including the one immediately to the US's north have fully legalised gay marriage. I predict this number will increase sharply over the next 20 years.
Ah yes, the People's Republic of Canada, by legal fiat. And they have an active Gay-stapo to put dissenters on trial, called the Human Rights Commissions.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 11:11 PM
It should be obvious that racial differences are nothing like sexual differences, to the argument is specious.

They are like them in that they are an argument for forbidding marriage that has been used but that is actually utterly irrelevant. In the case of interracial marriage this is now generally accepted in most nations and in the case of gay marriage I am hoping it is only a matter of time.

You can point to all the cosmetic differences you like but none of them demonstrate that any sound basis for blocking gay marriage exists - under which circumstances I consider it quite likely that those who tried to stall gay marriage now will in the future be viewed as dimly as those who tried to impose racism are today.


Quite a good term actually, as is homonazis for those bullying and threatening dissenters.

Actually they are lame melodramatic hack terms that fall flat when used anywhere that has been visited by anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Godwin's Law. Their constant and uninentionally comic repetition only reduces whatever minimal shock value they might have had. Ditto for "atheopath", "misotheist" and most the rest of your neologistic alphabet soup (pun intended.)


And it was far from irrelevant, since it was about those trying to deny real differences between the sexes, whereas race is a biologically meaningless term.

But whether or not some try to deny "real differences" is irrelevant to this gay marriage debate, since both of us agree that whatever differences exist do not justify withholding the vote to women. I likewise argue that the difference between gay couples and straight couples does not justify withholding the right of marriage to gay couples. I am still waiting for any remotely convincing counter-argument.


San Francisco is loopy left.

SF interpreted most broadly is only about a fifth of the state.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2008, 11:20 PM
They are like them in that they are an argument for forbidding marriage that has been used but that is actually utterly irrelevant. In the case of interracial marriage this is now generally accepted in most nations and in the case of gay marriage I am hoping it is only a matter of time.
Of course they are irrelevant, since the difference between a white man and a black man is insignificant, but between either and a woman is definitely significant.


You can point to all the cosmetic differences you like but none of them demonstrate that any sound basis for blocking gay marriage exists — under which circumstances I consider it quite likely that those who tried to stall gay marriage now will in the future be viewed as dimly as those who tried to impose racism are today.
That's certainly the leftist hope/smear. But if blacks today aren't buying it, it's most unlikely that most people in the future won't either. That's unless they are forcibly indoctrinated by government re-education camps aka public schools.


Actually they are lame melodramatic hack terms that fall flat when used anywhere that has been visited by anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Godwin's Law.
I delight in violating this crass law.


Their constant and uninentionally comic repetition only reduces whatever minimal shock value they might have had. Ditto for "atheopath", "misotheist" and most the rest of your neologistic alphabet soup (pun intended.)
Neologisms have their place, and it certainly has been known to get under atheopaths' skin at time :lol:

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2008, 12:32 AM
Of course they are irrelevant, since the difference between a white man and a black man is insignificant, but between either and a woman is definitely significant.

But not significant in a way that is relevant to this debate. As I mentioned above the difference between a couple comprising two seventy-year olds who want companionship and a couple comprising two twenty-year olds is a massive one (or even a couple comprising one of each!) but it is not massive enough to prevent either couple marrying in the eyes of the law nor even enough to stop people calling both arrangements "marriage".

The only issues that should be significant in determining whether two people should be allowed to marry each other are the basics of informed adult consent:

* Are they both of sufficient age to do so? (subject to one's opinion about what that age should be)
* Do they both freely, knowingly and at least arguably sanely (jokes aside) consent to the arrangement?
* Is either of them already married to somebody else? (If you support multiple marriages you might add the qualifier: "and withholding that fact from the person they now wish to marry").


That's certainly the leftist hope/smear.

I've been thrown out of the leftist camp by paulb so you'll have to call it the centrist hope/smear as well. Consider it altruistic advice in the interests of your future reputation. :P


But if blacks today aren't buying it, it's most unlikely that most people in the future won't either. That's unless they are forcibly indoctrinated by government re-education camps aka public schools.

I'm not sure how any of this follows given the broad corellations in the USA between race and education level or lack thereof.


I delight in violating this crass law.

Your "violations" are much more crass than the observation of widespread poor debating practice that led Mike Godwin to successfully and wittily propagate a rather neat little antidote.


Neologisms have their place, and it certainly has been known to get under atheopaths' skin at time :lol:

In other words a purpose of yours is to troll.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 08:46 AM
I believe I have given a reasonable definition of liberal democracy and Australia conforms to that definition.

I haven't seen. Would you like to repeat it?
#55
If you mean that:
"liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities. This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market."

It's not a definition, rather a statement of intent.
It might pass as a definition in arts and humanitarian studies, but not in scientifie.

You might want to read those articles in Wikipedia:
Genus-differentia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus-differentia_definition)
Fallacies of definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition)
They are not exhaustive, but a good starting point.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 08:48 AM
Firstly to make such an assertion you should have some reliable evidence such as a long-term academic study. Otherwise you should say "In my opinion...".

Few millenniums of human history would serve as a good empirical evidence.
Common sense and selfish gene theory would suggest the same.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 09:30 AM
Actually the meaning of "liberalism" was always vague and has drifted so much that its relevance to the term "liberal democracy" is now about zero. The term one really needs to understand (and you probably do have a good understanding of it, shame you can't apply it to this issue) is libertarian. A liberal democracy is basically a democracy that is subject to elements of overriding libertarianism in certain areas (but not necessarily in others).


The meaning of "liberalism" originally wasn't vague.
However, it indeed drifted a lot and lost it's original meaning. What it used to mean originally is very easy to work out from the term "classical liberalism". That term emerged (as well as the word "libertarian", which is very close to "classical liberalism") to distinguish the original meaning from what was added to it. That drifting occurred differently in different countries. For example, in US by adding "positive rights" liberalism become essentially a synonym to socialism.
The history of word "liberalism" is quite interesting and relevant to the debate.
Some words over time attach positive feeling, some negative.
When word attaches positive feeling, some unscrupulous politicians and other demagogues (special interest group, activist groups, etc.) try to attach themselves to that term by quietly redefining them to what they like.
If it becomes negative, they try attach their adversaries to that word, redefining it as well.
That happened to word liberalism.
Now militant homosexual activist groups are trying to redefine the word "marriage". At first they did it quietly, by defending "the right to marry", which was not really disputed. Referendums in American states, as well as laws protecting marriage from redefinition in some other countries, put those redefinition attempts into the spotlight.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 09:36 AM
It's not a definition, rather a statement of intent.
Lefties often define their policies by intent rather than result. E.g.


"peace movement", which in 1930s Europe emboldened Hitler and led to WW2.
"war on poverty"; if so, then poverty won, because the actual means employer resulted in poverty traps by clawing back benefits savagely if a person returned to work
"minimum wage law"; in reality, the minimum is zero, i.e. unemployment if a prospective employee's productivity is lower than the proscribed minimum
"public service"; in reality it serves the politicians and bureaucrats, while it's private industry that really must serve the public to survive
"foreign aid": should be called "foreign harm", since most countries that receive it are worse off than before, since it is stolen by despots (at worse) or at best kills off local industries

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 09:38 AM
If you want to add qualifiers to that term to stress all the different versions, eg first marriage, second marriage, twilight marriage, shotgun marriage, marriage of convenience, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, closed marriage, open marriage, childless marriage, marriage with 6 kids under the age of 7, arranged marriage, romantic marriage, marriage for the sake of the kids, gay marriage or whatever then that is fine.
Adding qualifiers to a definition is a normal process. I understood all qualifiers you added, apart from the last one.
Does it mean:
1. A woman in the marriage is "happily exited", " keenly alive and exuberant" (I use 1st meaning of word "gay" from Webster dictionary)
2. A man in the marriage is "happily exited", " keenly alive and exuberant"
3. Both man and a woman are "happily exited", " keenly alive and exuberant".
4. Homosexual woman married to heterosexual man
5. Homosexual man is married to heterosexual woman.
6. Homosexual man married to homosexual woman
Or does it mean all the above?

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 09:56 AM
What do you really mean by "natural" here?

If the term "natural" has the kind of meaning usually given to it by those who use the simplistic natural/artificial divide, then the "natural" state for a human child includes:

* no dentistry or modern medicine
* no access to processed foods
* no immunisation
* no fluoridation in the water
* clothing made from animal skins (etc)

You know yourself that was not what I meant. However, since you brought it up, let me ask you:

Scientific and economic development brought a lot of improvements that mitigated problems listed above.

Do you think bringing up children by homosexual couple would mitigate those problems?
Are there any other problems it would cure (that marriage would not)?



If what you really mean by "natural" is something like "statistically normal" (ie that an adopted child should be reared in an environment like that it would have been reared in otherwise) then that is a different matter. But even if being raised in such an environment is an intrinsic good for the child (and if so, where's the evidence?) there would still be some same-sex families which were better equipped to raise a child than some mixed-sex families that might want to do so.

First of all, do you disagree that such an environment is an intrinsic good for the child? Or you only argue it for the sake of argument?

The argument "some of group A are better then some of group B, therefore group B is not on average better then group A" is wrong.

Indeed, you can always find a homosexual couple and a married couple, where the former provides much better environment then a latter.
It does not, however, negate the fact that in general marriage environment is much better for the children then homosexual one.

Let me suggest a thought experiment.
Ask natural parents a question:
"Imagine, G-d forbid, both of you die in accident, there are no relatives to look after your children and they have to be adopted. Would you like them to be adopted by homosexual couple or married couple, all other things being equal".
I'll be very surprised if less then 95% choose married couple.

Miranda
14-11-2008, 01:59 PM
But then again, take a look at children who have lived in children's homes their whole life - I think they'd prefer to be adopted by anyone.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 02:11 PM
But then again, take a look at children who have lived in children's homes their whole life - I think they'd prefer to be adopted by anyone.
Let me give you an example. You can find millions women in world who are taller then an average man. You can also find million men who are shorter then an average woman. Yet men are taller then women on average (on average), and this difference is statistically significant.

You can find same-sex couples that provide a very good environment for a child, better then a children's home. By itself it's not a sufficient argument to say that adoption by same-sex couple is better then the children's home.

However, I know there are plenty of childless married couples that are very happy to adopt. Do you agree that they should be given preference?

Miranda
14-11-2008, 02:22 PM
You can find same-sex couples that provide a very good environment for a child, better then a children's home. By itself it's not a sufficient argument to say that adoption by same-sex couple is better then the children's home.



Why isn't it better? If it's a loving, caring family...

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 02:30 PM
Why isn't it better? If it's a loving, caring family...
As you views are not very well known on the board (If I remember my youth correctly, they also might be changing quickly), I am not sure whether it was serious or an irony.

Desmond
14-11-2008, 02:32 PM
You can find same-sex couples that provide a very good environment for a child, better then a children's home. By itself it's not a sufficient argument to say that adoption by same-sex couple is better then the children's home.It is also not sufficient to say that it is worse.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 02:37 PM
It is also not sufficient to say that it is worse.
By no means.
Both children's homes and homo-sexual couple environment have negatives in comparison to married families. To be honest, I have no idea which one is better or worse (on average).

I was under impression that large number of families happy to foster or adopt makes it irrelevant. However, I admit to not knowing how many kids (and for how long) are in children's homes in Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 02:41 PM
But then again, take a look at children who have lived in children's homes their whole life — I think they'd prefer to be adopted by anyone.
True. Not that the Gay-stapo care, because they forced Catholic Charities to close down their adoption agency, which was excellent at finding homes for difficult-to-place kids. Typical dog in the manger stuff: if gays can't adopt, then nobody can.

And another reason why poor kids are stuck in childrens homes is that the government's ever-growing tentacles is involved. Certain sections of the Social Warfare Welfare are anti-adoption, so there are huge bureaucratic hurdles for prospective adoptive parents. In this it's like the obnoxious laws against paying donors for kidney transplants discussed before (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7468) (and KB voted the same as me (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7468), amazingly, accounting for some of the 2% agreement :P) If I pay a young mother who is desperate that she can't take care of a child to adopt the child, it makes me a criminal. But it's apparently OK to pay the government bureaucrats, and it takes years, and the mother receives nothing.

Also, the adop-stapo are are against cross-racial adoption, although many white couples could provide loving homes for black babies: just look at Comrade Obamov's white grandparents who raised him.

Desmond
14-11-2008, 02:46 PM
By no means.
Both children's homes and homo-sexual couple environment have negatives in comparison to married families. To be honest, I have no idea which one is better or worse (on average).I meant worse than hetero couples.


I was under impression that large number of families happy to foster or adopt makes it irrelevant. However, I admit to not knowing how many kids (and for how long) are in children's homes in Australia.I think you are right that there are very many hetero couples queuing up for infants, but for older kids I suspect the supply is larger than the demand. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 02:47 PM
I think you are right that there are very many hetero couples queuing up for infants, but for older kids I suspect the supply is larger than the demand. ;)
But the only reason that there are many older kids is that the adop-stapo block so many parents from adopting them when they are younger.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 02:54 PM
I meant worse than hetero couples.

Boris,

It's quite simple. First of all, try the thought experiment I suggested in post 133. I believe that parents are better at choosing what's best for their children then everyone else.
Second, naturally born children living in a stable families (with their natural parents!) have better environment then other kids. If a child has to be adopted, environment that is closest to optimum is the best choice.
As any general rule, it might have exception. But those exceptions do not negate the general rule.

Desmond
14-11-2008, 03:00 PM
Boris,

It's quite simple. First of all, try the thought experiment I suggested in post 133. I believe that parents are better at choosing what's best for their children then everyone else.
Second, naturally born children living in a stable families (with their natural parents!) have better environment then other kids. If a child has to be adopted, environment that is closest to optimum is the best choice.
As any general rule, it might have exception. But those exceptions do not negate the general rule.Your experiment is a false dichotomy. Better experiment would be: rank in order of preference a) adopted by hetero couple, b) adopted by homo couple, c) not adopted. I think you will not achieve the 95% figure for the ranking a,c,b.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Your experiment is a false dichotomy. Better experiment would be: rank in order of preference a) adopted by hetero couple, b) adopted by homo couple, c) not adopted. I think you will not achieve the 95% figure for the ranking a,c,b.
Remember, your question I replied to was:
I meant worse than hetero couples.

As I said, I'd be surprised if option a) in your example scored less then 95%.

Desmond
14-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Remember, your question I replied to was:
As I said, I'd be surprised if option a) in your example scored less then 95%.So you would be happy for homo couples to adopt provided that no suitable hetero couples were in the queue?

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 03:17 PM
So you would be happy for homo couples to adopt provided that no suitable hetero couples were in the queue?
I am not flat out against adoption by homosexuals, just have a very strong reservations against it.
In an ideal society I would left it to adoption agency. However, being realistic, I understand that they will be under pressure from activist groups (which would include screams and, sometimes, court cases when application from homosexual couple is refused). As they don't deal with their own children, it would be easier for adoption officials to succumb to pressure.

Philosophically speaking, I would not support a legal ban against adoption by homo-sexual couples. However, given the reality we live in, this ban is probably justified.

Desmond
14-11-2008, 03:31 PM
I am not flat out against adoption by homosexuals, just have a very strong reservations against it.
In an ideal society I would left it to adoption agency. However, being realistic, I understand that they will be under pressure from activist groups (which would include screams and, sometimes, court cases when application from homosexual couple is refused). As they don't deal with their own children, it would be easier for adoption officials to succumb to pressure.

Philosophically speaking, I would not support a legal ban against adoption by homo-sexual couples. However, given the reality we live in, this ban is probably justified.Fair enough, I think your position is analagous to my thoughts on the matter of selling organs.

pax
14-11-2008, 03:33 PM
Strangely , you have cited cases where the unnatural interventions have in fact been harmful .

I take your children will never see a doctor or a dentist then?

TheJoker
14-11-2008, 03:34 PM
Few millenniums of human history would serve as a good empirical evidence.
Common sense and selfish gene theory would suggest the same.

So you are saying same-sex adoption has been around for a few millenniums:eh:

Just because heterosexual parenting is sucessful doesn't make homosexual unsucessful. Poor logic.

Secondly how does the selfish gene theory apply to adoption at all?

Rincewind
14-11-2008, 04:22 PM
If you mean that:
"liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities. This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market."

It's not a definition, rather a statement of intent.
It might pass as a definition in arts and humanitarian studies, but not in scientifie.

You might want to read those articles in Wikipedia:
Genus-differentia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus-differentia_definition)
Fallacies of definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition)
They are not exhaustive, but a good starting point.

If you think politics is a science then I suggest that you have the problem. As I said earlier, this is all off topic. I just made the point as you stating that Australia was not a liberal democracy was clearly mistaken on current local usage of the term. If you wish to discuss further please start a new thread.

NB I also note that schools of political science tend to be grouped in Arts faculties in Australia (the case for USyd and UMelb), or Social Sciences (UQ) I know of no university which includes a school of political "science" in their Science faculty.

...

Now to get back ON topic, perhaps you could answer my point that there is no direct connection between adoption laws and civil union laws and indeed it seems that in general adoption by same-sex couples precede civil unions of same-sex couple. Therefore how can impact on adoption be an issue?

By way of a concrete example, in WA same-sex co-sponsored adoption is already legal. Now assuming the federal mandate on same-sex unions was repealed, would you be against same-sex marriage in WA? If not, then why not?

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 12:05 AM
Adding qualifiers to a definition is a normal process. I understood all qualifiers you added, apart from the last one.
Does it mean:
1. A woman in the marriage is "happily exited[sic]", " keenly alive and exuberant" (I use 1st meaning of word "gay" from Webster dictionary)
2. A man in the marriage is "happily exited[sic", " keenly alive and exuberant"
3. Both man and a woman are "happily exited[sic], " keenly alive and exuberant".
4. Homosexual woman married to heterosexual man
5. Homosexual man is married to heterosexual woman.
6. Homosexual man married to homosexual woman
Or does it mean all the above?

There is no need to play these games as everybody knows the word "gay" has multiple meanings and it is very clear which ones I mean from this thread. I have no doubt that many gay marriages would indeed be "happily excited and exuberant" and indeed several were celebrated in such fashion in Connecticut this week, where the practice has thankfully been legalised.

But "gay marriage" I, of course, mean a marriage between non-heterosexual partners of the same sex. Note that couples who marry in this fashion are not necessarily homosexual - one or both may be bisexual, for example.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 12:17 AM
Do you think bringing up children by homosexual couple would mitigate those problems?

I don't think it is relevant. Although it is worth noting that gay people who want to marry are quite often intelligent, educated, and well informed about a range of health issues, and hence in a good position to look after their children's wellbeing in many ways.


Are there any other problems it would cure (that marriage would not)?

Not sure what kind of marriage you mean by this question. I do think that if more people were brought up by gay couples there would be less misunderstanding and fear towards gay people based on the evidence that it is really not such a big deal. (I speak from some experience. One of my direct ancestors was largely raised by a lesbian couple.)


First of all, do you disagree that such an environment is an intrinsic good for the child? Or you only argue it for the sake of argument?

I do not think the case that a mixed-sex parental environment is intrinsically better for a child than every possible same-sex parental environment has been made. I wish to see several examples of robust qualified well-designed peer-reviewed evidence on the subject before I form a view on that.


The argument "some of group A are better then some of group B, therefore group B is not on average better then group A" is wrong.

It is not my argument. My argument is more like "some of group A are better than some of group B, so the onus is on those who think group A is on average better than group B to prove it."


It does not, however, negate the fact that in general marriage environment is much better for the children then homosexual one.

That "fact" has not been established to my satisfaction. I wish to see the scientific evidence, and to see it with respect to lesbian couples as well as gay male couples.


Let me suggest a thought experiment.
Ask natural parents a question:
"Imagine, G-d forbid, both of you die in accident, there are no relatives to look after your children and they have to be adopted. Would you like them to be adopted by homosexual couple or married couple, all other things being equal".
I'll be very surprised if less then 95% choose married couple.

The responses of "natural parents" to your thought-experiment are no proof of anything.

If you asked gay parents (adoptive, via AI or surrogacy, whatever) the same question it may be that the same proportion of them would prefer their children to be adopted by a gay couple.

TheJoker
15-11-2008, 12:26 AM
The real argument against gay adoption is that gay parents are still stigmatised in the community, which means the child is likely to suffer social problems at school. I think many gay couples choose not to have children for that very reason. It's a catch-22 really, without gay parents being more widespread it is unlikely to be accepted as a social norm, however in order to make it more widespread some children will have to suffer the predjudices that people like Jono and Igor perpetuate.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 01:04 AM
The real argument against gay adoption is that gay parents are still stigmatised in the community, which means the child is likely to suffer social problems at school.

Indeed, when this was last debated on this board some years ago the main study that we discussed was one that found that for children raised by lesbian couples the only welfare negative likely to arise from their background is exactly that: the stigma falsely placed upon lesbian parenting by parts of the community.

I don't think it's a conclusive argument against gay adoption by any means. For instance children who are highly intelligent often suffer social problems at school as a result of the stigma attached to being different in that way, but that is not an argument against encouraging children to be highly intelligent. What needs to be considered is how the child weighs up the pros and cons of their experience down the track.


I think many gay couples choose not to have children for that very reason.

I'm sure that sometimes happens. I'd be interested to know how often it is the case, but despite my extensive familiarity with the gay rights debate this is not something I have seen any findings on.

Basil
15-11-2008, 02:39 AM
A consideration that I feel is most relevant (and no conclusion whatsoever should be drawn from my stance on the issue as a whole from the mere fact I raise it), is

• Rightly or wrongly, there is a stigma attached to gay couples and adoption.
• A child with a forming mind may, or may not, adjust in early adolescence to his or her new-found circumstances (or circumstances from birth as the case may be).
• A significant challenge for that adopted child will be to cope with schoolyard taunting and other social (and in some cases idiosyncratic) interactions.

Society may be wrong in seeking to prevent/ demur same sex couples adopting; and society may be even wrong(er) :P in using children to be used a canon fodder while the grown-ups sort out their issues.

Carry on - you're all doing very well.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2008, 03:04 AM
The real argument against gay adoption is that gay parents are still stigmatised in the community, which means the child is likely to suffer social problems at school.
Now that really isn't a strong argument, and this really does parallel the adop-stapo's opposition to mixed-race adoption.


I think many gay couples choose not to have children for that very reason. It's a catch-22 really, without gay parents being more widespread it is unlikely to be accepted as a social norm, however in order to make it more widespread some children will have to suffer the predjudices that people like Jono and Igor perpetuate.
Of course, Joke has not the slightest evidence that Igor or I would pick on innocent children to make any political point.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 09:43 AM
If you think politics is a science then I suggest that you have the problem.
Politics can be addressed on emotional level (as many lefties and politicians do), or approached logically, which usually shows the fallacy of leftist approach. It's up to you which road to choose.


NB I also note that schools of political science tend to be grouped in Arts faculties in Australia (the case for USyd and UMelb), or Social Sciences (UQ) I know of no university which includes a school of political "science" in their Science faculty.


No wonder politics lack logical sense.
...



Now to get back ON topic, perhaps you could answer my point that there is no direct connection between adoption laws and civil union laws and indeed it seems that in general adoption by same-sex couples precede civil unions of same-sex couple. Therefore how can impact on adoption be an issue?

If you carefully read the thread, you'd understood. In short - discussion was about difference between marriage and same-sex union. One of the biggest differences is that the latter cannot produce children naturally, hence discussion of children and adoption. Read the posts for more info.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 09:51 AM
But "gay marriage" I, of course, mean a marriage between non-heterosexual partners of the same sex. Note that couples who marry in this fashion are not necessarily homosexual - one or both may be bisexual, for example.
Kevin, I appreciate your back-door attempts (no pun intended) to quietly redefine the word marriage. As far as I know, in Australia it was not redefined legally (there are no law that would call same-sex couple "marriage") or politically (no major party expressed support for such redefinition).
Among the population this redefinition is only supported by gay activist.
Therefore I will stick to original definition and kindly suggest you do the same if you want a clarity in the debate and are not trying to muddy the water.
I do not dispute meaning of the word "gay" as homosexual.
"Gay marriage" in the way you meant is, by definition, an oxymoron, because marriage is a union between partners of the opposite sex.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 10:06 AM
I don't think it is relevant.
You made it relevant by listing all problems of natural environment.
If you bring something into the debate, you cannot later claim it's irrelevant.

Although it is worth noting that gay people who want to marry are quite often intelligent, educated, and well informed about a range of health issues, and hence in a good position to look after their children's wellbeing in many ways.

I already mentioned few times the fallacy of this argument. Example of women that are taller then average men, or of men that are shorter then an average woman does not negate the fact then men are taller then women (and the difference is statistically significant).



Not sure what kind of marriage you mean by this question.

Really? I think you know very well what kind of marriage I mean, as i was very consistent.


I do think that if more people were brought up by gay couples there would be less misunderstanding and fear towards gay people based on the evidence that it is really not such a big deal.
A small problem solved at the expense of large problems. I don't think there is much fear towards gays today, apart from fear (well founded, btw) from their militant activist group.



I do not think the case that a mixed-sex parental environment is intrinsically better for a child than every possible same-sex parental environment has been made. I wish to see several examples of robust qualified well-designed peer-reviewed evidence on the subject before I form a view on that.

The fallacy of "every" type argument is demonstrated above.
As of "robust qualified well-designed peer-reviewed evidence" it reminds me of communism advocate demanding proof that communism is discredited.
Evidences would be available (even though vehemently disputed) if you conduct a wide-scale experiment lasting at least 40 years. somehow I doubt that the subjects of this experiment will be thrilled.


The responses of "natural parents" to your thought-experiment are no proof of anything.

If you asked gay parents (adoptive, via AI or surrogacy, whatever) the same question it may be that the same proportion of them would prefer their children to be adopted by a gay couple.

Natural parents have the highest stake and interest in the well-being of their children then anyone else, especially militant activist groups that don't care about anyone or anything, apart from their agenda.
I cannot ask gay parents as they cannot be natural parents (at least from gay relationship). and that's the main difference between a marriage and a gay relationship.

Rincewind
15-11-2008, 02:37 PM
If you carefully read the thread, you'd understood. In short - discussion was about difference between marriage and same-sex union. One of the biggest differences is that the latter cannot produce children naturally, hence discussion of children and adoption. Read the posts for more info.

But you are being illogical. If same-sex couples are able to adopt children already, what would be the point of stopping same-sex marriages for this reason?

The repeat the question (worded more clearly I hope):

In WA same-sex couples can legally adopt now. Are you against same-sex marriage in WA? If so, why?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 03:38 PM
But you are being illogical.
Before accusing someone of being illogical try to make a small mental effort (or a big one if necessary) to understand what is being discussed.

If same-sex couples are able to adopt children already, what would be the point of stopping same-sex marriages for this reason?


Discussion of adoption by same-sex couple is a sub-product of a main discussion, which is:
"Should the word marriage be redefined to also mean same-sex union".
My opinion is no as union between man and a woman is inherently different from homosexual union. Therefore different words should be used to describe hem.
Kevin's opinion (if I understood correctly) is that the difference between those is so insignificant that the same word should be used.

Broader discussion of equal rights between homo- and heterosexuals was not my intention (I am not aware of any law that give heterosexuals some rights homosexuals do not have). Unfortunately, arguments like "homosexuals are denied right to marry" still crept into discussion despite being irrelevant.

Adoption by same-sex couples and redefinition of a marriage do not depend on each other, even though each discussion has points relevant to the other topic.



The repeat the question (worded more clearly I hope):

In WA same-sex couples can legally adopt now. Are you against same-sex marriage in WA? If so, why?

I am only against using word (or legal term) marriage to describe same-sex union.
As far as same-sex arrangements concerned, I am against legislation that would limit the rights of same-sex couple to make arrangements they both mutually agree. I am also not aware of such legislation in any Australian state.

Rincewind
15-11-2008, 04:21 PM
If you carefully read the thread, you'd understood. In short - discussion was about difference between marriage and same-sex union. One of the biggest differences is that the latter cannot produce children naturally, hence discussion of children and adoption. Read the posts for more info.

And you still refuse the answer the direct question.

Whether the same-sex union is called a marriage or not, it still has access to adoption and therefore can the the partners so choose raise the children.

Given this is the case then what you claim to be the main distinguishing feature of a marriage (child-rearing) is available to same-sex unions and therefore by your reasoning they SHOULD be called a marriage.

Therefore, even though you are very likely to ignore it again, I'll repeat it for the third time...

In WA same-sex couples can legally adopt now. Are you against same-sex marriage in WA? If so, why?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 04:33 PM
Given this is the case then what you claim to be the main distinguishing feature of a marriage (child-rearing) is available to same-sex unions and therefore by your reasoning they SHOULD be called a marriage.


Natural child-rearing is not possible in the same-sex union.
Therefore, even though you are very likely to ignore it again, I'll repeat it for the third time...

In WA same-sex couples can legally adopt now. Are you against same-sex marriage in WA? If so, why?
I already answered this question in previous post. Do you expect different answer to the same question?
If you did not understand something in my answer, feel free to ask. I'll try to explain in more details (even though it's pretty clear).

Rincewind
15-11-2008, 05:10 PM
I already answered this question in previous post. Do you expect different answer to the same question?
If you did not understand something in my answer, feel free to ask. I'll try to explain in more details (even though it's pretty clear).

You had some confusing waffle about "same-sex arrangements" whatever they are. I think it will lead to less confusion if we try to stick with

same-sex union : couple not recognised as a marriage
same-sex marriage : same thing but is recognised as a marriage

So to expand on the question a little more as I know comprehension is not your strong suit.

Regarding the laws in WA, as far as I am aware and judging from the contents of Wiki (which you are welcome to challenge if you have some other more reliable source) partners in a same-sex union can make a joint petition for adoption. Thus become co-adopters of a child and share responsibility for the rearing of the same.

This being the case, what is the nature of your problem with calling same-sex unions in WA same-sex marriages? Since child-rearing is a legal possibility of the union.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 05:34 PM
You had some confusing waffle about "same-sex arrangements" whatever they are. I think it will lead to less confusion if we try to stick with

same-sex union : couple not recognised as a marriage
same-sex marriage : same thing but is recognised as a marriage

You can stick whatever you wish (no pun intended). I do not recognise same-sex union as marriage.


...as I know comprehension is not your strong suit.

Could very well be the case. However, coming from you it sounds comical.



Regarding the laws in WA, as far as I am aware and judging from the contents of Wiki (which you are welcome to challenge if you have some other more reliable source) partners in a same-sex union can make a joint petition for adoption. Thus become co-adopters of a child and share responsibility for the rearing of the same.

You try to question "then" part of the statement. That's fine. First you must provide "if" part, which you also do. However, the link between "if" and "then" is very weak even if it exists. How eligibility for petition for adoption negate the fact that same-sex couple cannot naturally rear the child?
Btw, "rearing" is acceptable, but not very precise, as it usually assumes the whole process, including conception and birth.



This being the case, what is the nature of your problem with calling same-sex unions in WA same-sex marriages? Since child-rearing is a legal possibility of the union.
As I explained above, child-rearing(actually, just a part of it) being a legal option does not make it a natural option.
My opposition to redefining the word "marriage" is not contingent on whether same-sex couples have a legal right to adopt or not.

Crossfire (Axiom)
15-11-2008, 09:24 PM
I've been seeing a gerbil for the last few months.
Things are starting to get serious , we have much in common .
We are both seriously thinking of spending the rest of our lives together.
A wedding would be wonderful , as it would to have our sacred union recognised respectfully by the whole community but unfortunately we would suffer the heartless viciousness of discrimination.
We would love to frolic free in the fields , free to explore our love together , free from the senseless hatred of those who would deny us our happiness.
[ snipped for being to graphic ]

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 10:23 PM
Kevin, I appreciate your back-door attempts (no pun intended) to quietly redefine the word marriage. As far as I know, in Australia it was not redefined legally

Not yet, so with reference to Australia I can only speak hypothetically.

However in several parts of the world gay marriages exist, are happening, and are bringing much joy to those who are permitted to engage in them. So clearly there is a thing called "gay marriage" that really exists, and there is no point in denying that. It just doesn't exist here.


Among the population this redefinition is only supported by gay activist.

It would appear to follow from this that I am a "gay activist", although I am actually one of the most boringly and exclusively heterosexual people on the planet. I will accept being called a "pro-gay activist", if you must. But in any case, your claim is false since these redefinitions have acheived support among populations elsewhere that is clearly far beyond the ranks of pro-gay activism. Even those US popular votes in which the gay marriage side is defeated heavily still bear this out given what a tiny proportion of the population are "activists" about anything. The same would doubtless happen here.


Therefore I will stick to original definition and kindly suggest you do the same if you want a clarity in the debate and are not trying to muddy the water.

I am not trying to muddy the water at all but I shall decline your suggestion since as I have pointed out above, gay marriage already exists. It just isn't yet legal here.


I do not dispute meaning of the word "gay" as homosexual.

Or bisexual in this context.


"Gay marriage" in the way you meant is, by definition, an oxymoron, because marriage is a union between partners of the opposite sex.

It's not an oxymoron in Canada, Belgium, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Israel (although Israel only recognises gay marriages performed elsewhere). It is only an oxymoron here in legal terms, but as something that might hypothetically be allowed here it is a completely coherent concept.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2008, 10:31 PM
It's not an oxymoron in Canada, Belgium, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Israel (although Israel only recognises gay marriages performed elsewhere). It is only an oxymoron here in legal terms, but as something that might hypothetically be allowed here it is a completely coherent concept.
How many were imposed by an activist court?

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 10:40 PM
How many were imposed by an activist court?

In Canada and South Africa court rulings were the primary trigger for changes in the law, while in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain the changes were passed through parliament. In California there was a direct legal ruling which has now been overturned by ballot. I am unsure of the trigger in the other two US states or in Israel but clearly where gay marriage has been created there are a range of methods by which it has come about.

Furthermore the method by which it originates, while interesting, is irrelevant to my point that legalised gay marriage exists even if it is not currently allowed here.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 10:51 PM
Please show where I indicated my opposition to the right of homosexuals to make whatever arrangements they want, or even calling it whatever they want.

I have suggested that gay couples should be allowed to make arrangements to be recognised as married in the eyes of the law, and to call such arrangements marriages. You clearly appear to disagree.


I only oppose to forcing everyone else to accept it as a marriage.

I have already pointed out that with the exception of a very limited range of institutions, no one else is forced to accept it as a marriage and therefore your objection is misconceived. They can call it what they like, irrespective of what the State calls it.


Please understand that the right to be left alone and a right for approval are different. They are even different kind of rights(the former is negative, the latter is positive.

Indeed they are but the state in permitting two people to be married in no way indicates that it approves of their marriage. It simply agrees that they should have the right to conduct it. Your claims that this is a positive freedom issue are simply incorrect.


Then don't.

Indeed I won't; now that you have given a reply that focuses primarily on the gay marriage issue I am replying to it in the gay marriage thread.


For the record, I never claimed to be a libertarian. However, I do share their basic principles (even though I do not necessarily approve 100% of their policies), proud of that and happy to apply them in my day to day life.
The same cannot be said about majority of lefties who are full of contradictions and hypocrisies.

The majority is also true of the majority of orthodox right-wingers.

What intrigues me though is that posters such as Jono and you are generally so keen on the economic freedom side of libertarianism but so wary of the social freedom side. I spent large parts of years of my life studying political philosophy issues relevant to libertarianism and find that it is in the area of economics that the doctrine has the most philosophical problems (which is why I am not a libertarian) while the social-freedom issues remain by and large no-brainers. When I encounter someone who has taken the reverse approach I wonder if they have really thought the philosophical basics through, and suspect that their interest in freedom is economically instrumental rather than at the base of their political philosophy.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 01:12 AM
“Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children. … what children need most are mothers and fathers. Not caregivers. Not parent-like adults. Not even ‘parents.’ What a child wants and needs more than anything else are the mother and the father who together made the child, who love the child, and who love each other.”—The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn.

One review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZiOTNhYmYyZTE1MjZmOGZkMjExZGI0MGExMzNhNGY)sta tes:


Homosexuality and “gay” relationships were not among Blankenhorn’s concerns — which is why he recoils from charges of “prejudice” or even “conservatism”. Having grown up in Mississippi during Martin Luther King’s leadership of the civil rights movement, Blankenhorn is “a lifelong Democrat”. thinks of himself “essentially as a liberal,” and cannot stand “to be viewed as a bigot”. He affirms that “the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons,” but insists that the institution of marriage is not the vehicle for advancing gay-rights, for marriage is not “fundamentally about the rights of adults.”

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 01:20 AM
What intrigues me though is that posters such as Jono and you are generally so keen on the economic freedom side of libertarianism but so wary of the social freedom side. I spent large parts of years of my life studying political philosophy issues relevant to libertarianism and find that it is in the area of economics that the doctrine has the most philosophical problems (which is why I am not a libertarian)
I can't think of any, and the strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity should tell us something. Economic freedom is even more important than democracy for prosperity, as Walter Williams demonstrate (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams112900.asp)s. The LDP's tax/welfare plan beats both Labor's and the Coalition's hands down.


while the social-freedom issues remain by and large no-brainers. When I encounter someone who has taken the reverse approach I wonder if they have really thought the philosophical basics through, and suspect that their interest in freedom is economically instrumental rather than at the base of their political philosophy.
In practice, conservatives have been the strongest supporters of economic freedom, while these "socially liberal and economic libertarians" are quite rare, and don't stay economically libertarian (Arnie, and perhaps yourself (I don't want to misrepresent you but IIRC you were libertarian in your younger days)).

Traditional morality and economic libertarianism come from the same basis: trust of the overall results of decisions by millions of people working out the best social rules and prices, rather than some Anointed deciding those for the masses.

Adamski
16-11-2008, 01:31 AM
I've been seeing a gerbil for the last few months.
Perhaps we should be glad it wasn't a bergil!:P

TheJoker
16-11-2008, 01:31 AM
Now that really isn't a strong argument, and this really does parallel the adop-stapo's opposition to mixed-race adoption.

Mixed race couples are a social norm. Personally i know gay couples who have rejected the idea of having children for the very reason that they felt that the child would suffer to much predjudices



Of course, Joke has not the slightest evidence that Igor or I would pick on innocent children to make any political point.

Never said you would, learn to read. I said you perpetuate gay predjudices.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:17 AM
What intrigues me though is that posters such as Jono and you are generally so keen on the economic freedom side of libertarianism but so wary of the social freedom side. I spent large parts of years of my life studying political philosophy issues relevant to libertarianism and find that it is in the area of economics that the doctrine has the most philosophical problems (which is why I am not a libertarian) while the social-freedom issues remain by and large no-brainers. When I encounter someone who has taken the reverse approach I wonder if they have really thought the philosophical basics through, and suspect that their interest in freedom is economically instrumental rather than at the base of their political philosophy.

It's actually a no-brainer if you think a little about it.
Social freedom is very important, and everyone entitled to a lifestyle of their choice. However, in a leftist economy it becomes the question of what lifestyle is subsidised by the state and to which degree.
Demand of a greater subsidy usually go under the disguise of demand of "social freedom".

I actually oppose "positive" rights that are nothing more then entitlements.

A question:
Can you name any specific social liberty I opposed? (don't try to say I want to deny to homosexuals "the right to marry", as it won't be correct).

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:40 AM
It's not an oxymoron in Canada, Belgium, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Israel (although Israel only recognises gay marriages performed elsewhere). It is only an oxymoron here in legal terms, but as something that might hypothetically be allowed here it is a completely coherent concept.

It's still an oxymoron, just legalised one.
And Israel does not recognise then as a marriage, but as a same-sex couple.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:44 AM
Mixed race couples are a social norm. Personally i know gay couples who have rejected the idea of having children for the very reason that they felt that the child would suffer to much predjudices


Adopting children is a noble act (which is not many capable of, BTW).
However, "having children" usually (not always, of course) assumes natural rearing. As gay couples cannot have children naturally (and, therefore, their raison-d-etre is different from marriage, hence different words should be used), it'll be more accurate to say:
"rejected the idea of adopting children".

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 09:47 AM
Mixed race couples are a social norm.
Because there is nothing in the historic definition of marriage that covers skin pigmentation. But the Adopt-stapo don't like white couples adopting black babies.

Continuing from Our Marital Future (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZiOTNhYmYyZTE1MjZmOGZkMjExZGI0MGExMzNhNGY)
One Democrat [David Blankenhorn] gets it.
By Robert P. George & Ryan T. Anderson


Same-sex “marriage” would harm children by intentionally depriving them of their mom or dad. It would send the cultural and legal message that moms and dads don’t matter.

Consider the conclusions of the left-leaning research institution Child’s Trends:


Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two-biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. … There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

Redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would deprive a class of children of their birthright to be raised by their natural mother and father. It would advance the notion that children do not need a mother and a father, let alone their own mother and father. Same-sex parenting would send the message that parenting is not gendered. There would be nothing known as mothering or fathering, solely “parenting” — a unisex phenomenon. Both culture and law would be unable to stress the important role that fathers play in their children’s lives without giving offense to “alternative” families in which there simply is no father. This would have disastrous effect for our nation’s children.

All true. I've noted before the documentation by black economist Dr Walter Williams (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4460)that there is very little difference between white and black incomes of comparable families, but families led by married people are far better off than families led by single parents. The reason for the higher black poverty rate is that fewer black families are led by married couples. This is a problem with welfare replacing fathers as breadwinners, not racism since black families were more intact during slavery and Jim Crow.


Never said you would, learn to read. I said you perpetuate gay predjudices.
Yes, many gays are prejudiced against Judeo-Christians.


Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine “rights” to artificial reproductive technologies (ART) that sever children’s biological origins from the adults who will raise them. This would lead to new definitions of parenthood — creating a distinction between natural and legal parents.

...

Whereas adoption and divorce have always been understood as remedial institutions needed to deal with tragedies of one sort or another, same-sex “marriage” would enshrine in law a normative right of adults to “have” children. The law would thus not recognize natural parenthood as being the ideal.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 11:55 AM
I missed Jono's #93:


Good, but then you try to mitigate this disapproval.

Not at all. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved when illiberals complain about illiberal responses.


Where does a misotheist like you get off putting Christians in scare quotes for any reason, esp. as Christ explicitly stated (Matthew 19:4–6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2019:4-6;&version=31;)):


"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So it's the churchians who think there is such a think as gay "marriage" who are the "Christians", since they are contradicting Christ Himself.

Concerning the quotes, there is clearly enormous debate within various "Christian" movements about what it is to be a Christian on issues like this. Different self-professed "Christians" will argue for opposite approaches to the same issue and will be found on both sides of the same debate. Included in the debate is ongoing contention about whether being a Christian involves taking a very large number of scriptural passages literally or whether it involves adopting certain basic attitudes and trying to apply them to all things. We do not expect a "Freudian" to agree with every single thing Freud said or a "Nietzschean" to agree with every word of Nietzsche (indeed, even Nietzsche did not do that) so expecting a "Christian" to agree with every comment made by Christ is at least debatable.

I do not seek to resolve that debate but in cases where I disapprove strongly of some "Christian" responses to a particular issue I often use quotes to indicate that I realise not all self-professed "Christians" have the same views. I do not wish to tar the entire faith with the illiberal obstinacies of a portion of it.

Concerning your argument above, it is a non sequitur, and such an obvious application of a passage out of context causes me to question that your understanding of Scripture, while doubtless considerable, is all that we might be led to believe. In the passage you quote, Jesus was responding to some Pharisees who asked him "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" Thus his comments clearly state that once a man has married a woman and vice versa, they should not be divorced (an illiberal and inflexible attitude anyway, but I digress).

Even if his comments were not made in that context I would not see them specifically as precluding gay marriage. They state that God created males and females for a particular purpose (which is not explicitly stated) and that men and women should marry for that purpose. They do not explicitly state that this (whatever it is) is the sole reason for allowing marriage.

That said I have not investigated the claims that Jesus never spoke against gay marriage and suspect that even if true, they are irrelevant, as the issue was not proposed in his time.


Christians aren't threatening violence against gays or threatening to burn down gay bars.

How do you think Christians would take it if gays had laws passed declaring that only secular marriages would be recognised by the state and that all church marriages were illegal?

As it happens, fringe extremist so-called "Christians" will threaten violence over pretty much anything and everything. I myself received a very idiotic letter wishing me dead after arguing against a Catholic school's decision to expel a student for living with her boyfriend.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 12:06 PM
It's actually a no-brainer if you think a little about it.
Social freedom is very important, and everyone entitled to a lifestyle of their choice. However, in a leftist economy it becomes the question of what lifestyle is subsidised by the state and to which degree.

That is a completely different issue to the question of gay marriage.


Demand of a greater subsidy usually go under the disguise of demand of "social freedom".

But this is not a demand for a greater subsidy, it is a demand for a specific freedom to have gay marriages recommended by the state. If those making the demand are also requesting a subsidy at the same time then one can easily support the demand for freedom while opposing the demand for a subsidy.


I actually oppose "positive" rights that are nothing more then entitlements.

Sometimes the language of postive vs negative rights can become a little confused in these discussions. You appear to be portraying the right of gay couples to marry as a positive right. It is, however, better seen as a negative right - the right to be free of state intervention that prevents one from marrying who one wishes to marry. If you argue that marriage is merely an "entitlement" and hence a positive right, the same could be said for anything else an individual might wish to freely do that another group might wish the State to prevent.


A question:
Can you name any specific social liberty I opposed? (don't try to say I want to deny to homosexuals "the right to marry", as it won't be correct).

You are, on my reading, denying gay couples the right to engage in a marriage that is recognised as such by the State.

Rincewind
16-11-2008, 12:09 PM
You can stick whatever you wish (no pun intended). I do not recognise same-sex union as marriage.

Fine then we are agreed on the terms as defined in my previous post.


Could very well be the case. However, coming from you it sounds comical.

Perhaps it is time for a different tack... ;)


You try to question "then" part of the statement. That's fine. First you must provide "if" part, which you also do. However, the link between "if" and "then" is very weak even if it exists.

If you say so.


How eligibility for petition for adoption negate the fact that same-sex couple cannot naturally rear the child?
Btw, "rearing" is acceptable, but not very precise, as it usually assumes the whole process, including conception and birth.

Ok I think the word of contention here is "naturally". Now most people don't "naturally" rear children at all. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I'd be surprised if it is not the case that the majority of childbirths (in Australia) are performed in a hospital using all sorts of evil technology like nitrogen oxide, pethidine, university trained doctors and midwives.

So people today aren't choosing "natural" childbirth. Are all these marriages shams and missing the point as to what it means to be a marriage?

Secondly female same-sex couples are perfectly capable of "naturally" rearing a child provided they can find a sperm donor and can settle on an insemination technique everyone is happy with. That can range from "natural" to more "artificial". Now before you pipe up with "that is requiring a third party", everyone requires service providers for something, food, vegetables, child care, pool cleaners, pharmaceutical manufacturers, the list goes on. You probably think there is something special about this particular service but if so, I'd like to know why?


As I explained above, child-rearing(actually, just a part of it) being a legal option does not make it a natural option.
My opposition to redefining the word "marriage" is not contingent on whether same-sex couples have a legal right to adopt or not.

Well you brought up adoption. It seems to be nothing more than a distraction though. From what I've been able to tease out of your posts thus far I believe your argument is this...


Marriage is a union of two people who together and without any medical intervention or sperm donor are able to conceive children.

However, this disenfranchises a huge segment of the heterosexual unions which your currently class as marriages.

For example, what about men/women who lose both testicles/ovaries to cancer. They are 100% certifiably sterile. In your view, are they then able to marry?

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 12:20 PM
Not at all. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved when illiberals complain about illiberal responses.
More likely, the hypcrisy involves leftmedia tolerance of homonazi bullying of Christians (http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2008/11/15/radical_homosexuals_trample_a_cross,_harass_a_gran ny,_crash_a_church,_and_threaten_joe_the_plumber%e 2%80%99s_life), where if it were Christians bullying homosexuals, we'd never hear the end of it. And you are equivocating between alleged "illiberalism" of objecting to leftist courts foisting a re-definition of marriage upon us, and the "illiberalism" of physical bullying.


Concerning the quotes, there is clearly enormous debate within various "Christian" movements about what it is to be a Christian on issues like this. Different self-professed "Christians" will argue for opposite approaches to the same issue and will be found on both sides of the same debate.
As Gresham Machen pointed out in Christianity and Liberalism (1923), liberalism is not a form of Christianity but a totally different religion.


Included in the debate is ongoing contention about whether being a Christian involves taking a very large number of scriptural passages literally or whether it involves adopting certain basic attitudes and trying to apply them to all things.
That's double talk, and I've already addressed the straw man of "literalism".


We do not expect a "Freudian" to agree with every single thing Freud said or a "Nietzschean" to agree with every word of Nietzsche (indeed, even Nietzsche did not do that) so expecting a "Christian" to agree with every comment made by Christ is at least debatable.
Totally different. A foundational christian doctrine is that Jesus is God, while Freudians and Nietzscheans, and likewise Lutherans and Calvinists, don't claim the same about their eponymous founders.


Concerning your argument above, it is a non sequitur, and such an obvious application of a passage out of context causes me to question that your understanding of Scripture, while doubtless considerable, is all that we might be led to believe.
As you're in a position to know.


In the passage you quote, Jesus was responding to some Pharisees who asked him "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
As if I didn't know—at every church creation talk, I discuss the wider context about the Pharisees questioning Jesus about marriage. Jeus based it on the creation order, as well as other understood concepts at the time that a man leaves his father and mother as a reflection of Adam having no father and mother, and the two become one flesh because Eve was taken from Adam's flesh.


Thus his comments clearly state that once a man has married a woman and vice versa, they should not be divorced (an illiberal and inflexible attitude anyway, but I digress).
Except for porneia (http://www.tektonics.org/af/divorce2.html), and why is it "illiberal and inflexible" to believe that marriage vows should be honoured?


Even if his comments were not made in that context I would not see them specifically as precluding gay marriage. They state that God created males and females for a particular purpose (which is not explicitly stated)The passage was all about marriage, and Jesus's statements provide the reasons and basis for marriage: the created order of male and female.


and that men and women should marry for that purpose. They do not explicitly state that this (whatever it is) is the sole reason for allowing marriage.
The whole passage is about marriage, and the first thing Jesus notes is that it's a male and female.


That said I have not investigated the claims that Jesus never spoke against gay marriage and suspect that even if true, they are irrelevant, as the issue was not proposed in his time.
This actually undercut the leftist argument from silence, "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" (He never said anything about rape or pederasty either). However, homosexual behaviour was known and prohibited by the Scriptures, which He said "cannot be broken". And when Jesus spoke against "sexual immorality", a Jew speaking to Jews would be including homosexual behaviour.


As it happens, fringe extremist so-called "Christians" will threaten violence over pretty much anything and everything.
Where are they? Given the Leftmedia's desire to smear Christians at every opportunity, the lack of coverage implies that such extremists really are "fringe".


I myself received a very idiotic letter wishing me dead after arguing against a Catholic school's decision to expel a student for living with her boyfriend.
Not good at all, but nothing came of that. This is different from the common physical bullying by homonazis. But the Catholic school has a right to insist on Catholic morality for its students.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 12:33 PM
He affirms that “the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons,” but insists that the institution of marriage is not the vehicle for advancing gay-rights, for marriage is not “fundamentally about the rights of adults.” [/INDENT]

As I have pointed out several times, marriage is about a range of different things for different people. The argument that it is about the rights of children applies to those marriages in which children are raised. And in such contexts the biggest threat to the purpose of those marriages comes not from whether or not gay people are allowed to marry (which isn't even a threat at all) but from the attitudes of the parents themselves.

If he is concerned about the breakup of the family and the rights of children to a stable home environment he would be better off directing his energy at the difficult question of whether it is too easy for some parents to get a divorce. (This is a tricky issue but it is one where liberty is an uninformative principle, because it can easily be argued that when parents choose to have children, they accept obligations to them.)


I can't think of any, and the strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity should tell us something.

I have addressed the problems I see with economic libertarianism on other threads in the past.


In practice, conservatives have been the strongest supporters of economic freedom, while these "socially liberal and economic libertarians" are quite rare, and don't stay economically libertarian

Indeed, and there's a reason for that. One can easily arrive at economic libertarianism by analogy from social libertarianism and then notice that the analogy has a lot of holes in it. This has been my own experience.


Traditional morality and economic libertarianism come from the same basis: trust of the overall results of decisions by millions of people working out the best social rules and prices, rather than some Anointed deciding those for the masses.

"Traditional morality" often just reflects the decisions and impositions of previous generations of Anointed, frequently religious ones, rather than the real preferences of "millions of people".

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 12:40 PM
It's still an oxymoron, just legalised one.

Actually as soon as it is legalised, it ceases to become an oxymoron on the basis you were arguing (ie its illegality).


And Israel does not recognise then as a marriage, but as a same-sex couple.

Actually Israel's Supreme Court has required the government to accept same-sex marriages performed elsewhere - see here (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Same_Sex_Marriages.php).

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 12:44 PM
If he is concerned about the breakup of the family and the rights of children to a stable home environment he would be better off directing his energy at the difficult question of whether it is too easy for some parents to get a divorce. (This is a tricky issue but it is one where liberty is an uninformative principle, because it can easily be argued that when parents choose to have children, they accept obligations to them.)
It is. Liberty doesn't entail the right to break contracts. But the contract to honour and cherish is broken by violence or infidelity. Conversely, "no-fault divorce" costs Australia $6 billion p. (http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=100226)a.


Indeed, and there's a reason for that. One can easily arrive at economic libertarianism by analogy from social libertarianism and then notice that the analogy has a lot of holes in it. This has been my own experience.
Right, so moral conservatism is a better foundation for economic libertarianism. This means that the GOP should stop listening to the leftmedia urges to abandon the moral conservative wing (even more than it has).


"Traditional morality" often just reflects the decisions and impositions of previous generations of Anointed, frequently religious ones, rather than the real preferences of "millions of people".
It's notable that marriage as man and woman is transcultural, not something that occurs only in Judeo-christian ones.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 12:46 PM
Actually Israel's Supreme Court has required the government to accept same-sex marriages performed elsewhere - see here (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Same_Sex_Marriages.php).
Once again, judicial bullying by leftist courts legislating from the bench is the way this cause is advanced. It would be a big improvement if elected representatives reined in these judicial despots; the US Constitution allows congress to restrict jurisdiction of courts, but they are too gutless to use this power in most cases.

That article mentions an attempt to try to overturn this Israeli court ruling by a bill in Knesset to make gay marriages illegal.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 12:56 PM
Continuing from Our Marital Future (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZiOTNhYmYyZTE1MjZmOGZkMjExZGI0MGExMzNhNGY)
One Democrat [David Blankenhorn] gets it.
By Robert P. George & Ryan T. Anderson

[..]


Same-sex “marriage” would harm children by intentionally depriving them of their mom or dad. It would send the cultural and legal message that moms and dads don’t matter.

Spurious argument as the child gets either two moms or two dads. So it would uphold the cultural and legal message that parents (not necc biological) matter and that it is better to have two of them than one, neither of which I disagree with. Whether the so-called "cultural message" that having one mom and one dad is best is even sound is a matter that is subject to complex and emerging debate.


Consider the conclusions of the left-leaning research institution Child’s Trends:

[INDENT]Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two-biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. … There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

Note how this quote does not even mention gay couples or even adoptive stably married couples. It only compares two-parent biological couples to:

* single parent families
* children born out of wedlock where the chance of reaching a SPF situation is higher
* children in stepfamilies where there is probably a past history of divorce and instability
* children in cohabiting relationships where again there may be a higher chance of reaching a SPF situation.

It provides no proof that biological parenthood is the key factor as opposed to the stability of the two-parent child-rearing environment.


Redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would deprive a class of children of their birthright to be raised by their natural mother and father.

This "birthright" is simply asserted without evidence.


It would advance the notion that children do not need a mother and a father, let alone their own mother and father.

It would be consistent with the notion that children do need parents and that it is better to have two than one. The notion that children need a mother and a father to rear them continuously, or even need to be reared by their own biological parents, is clearly empirically false.


Same-sex parenting would send the message that parenting is not gendered. There would be nothing known as mothering or fathering, solely “parenting” — a unisex phenomenon.

This is again spurious (and something of a diversion since SSP will occur with or without gay marriage anyway, as it has in the past) since the great majority of couples will still be mixed-sex. All that happens (and has long happened) is that not all families conform to that norm.

I responded to the Williams stuff when it was posted.


Yes, many gays are prejudiced against Judeo-Christians.

Not surprising given that religion has, even in the very recent past, been employed to attempt to outlaw their sexuality.


[I]Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine “rights” to artificial reproductive technologies (ART) that sever children’s biological origins from the adults who will raise them. This would lead to new definitions of parenthood — creating a distinction between natural and legal parents.

The pass was sold on that one long ago. ART is already well and truly with us, and again, this is confusing the issue of same-sex marriage with the issue of same-sex parenting, as it is quite possible for a person to support either but not the other.

TheJoker
16-11-2008, 03:20 PM
Adopting children is a noble act (which is not many capable of, BTW).
However, "having children" usually (not always, of course) assumes natural rearing. As gay couples cannot have children naturally (and, therefore, their raison-d-etre is different from marriage, hence different words should be used), it'll be more accurate to say:
"rejected the idea of adopting children".

Yes they can, it just means that only one of the couple is the biological parent.

TheJoker
16-11-2008, 03:23 PM
Yes, many gays are prejudiced against Judeo-Christians.

What's that got to do with you being predjudice against them. I always thought that two wrongs don't make a right.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 04:04 PM
It's notable that marriage as man and woman is transcultural, not something that occurs only in Judeo-christian ones.

Yes, across societies conventionally marriage has been between one (or in extremely rare cases) more men and one or more females (who may or may not be old enough to be considered "women" depending on your definition.)

But this is not relevant when one considers the (fortunately waning) extent to which most societies have persecuted alternative sexualities, such that being openly non-straight let alone being in a position to request the right of gay marriage has generally been discouraged. The failure of other societies to deliver equality in this area in the past is no argument against doing so now.


Once again, judicial bullying by leftist courts legislating from the bench is the way this cause is advanced.

I doubt whether you know that all courts that have passed these decrees are actually leftist. It seems you operate according to a logical fallacy that since the left supports gay marriage, and since some courts (some of them with leftist judges on them) support gay marriage that therefore any court that supports gay marriage must be leftist.

Also re "legislating from the bench", when a court makes a ruling such as this it is typically forming a judgement that one item of government legislation or agreement overrides another. Often the real responsibility for such decisions lies with governments that sign nebulous international agreements and leave the courts to clean up the mess of what they have actually agreed to. Where this advances liberty I am pleased to see it but in other cases it can be retrograde and overcommiting in nature, eg environmental law.



That article mentions an attempt to try to overturn this Israeli court ruling by a bill in Knesset to make gay marriages illegal.

As the court decree is from 2006 and remains in force I assume that attempt must have failed.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:02 PM
That is a completely different issue to the question of gay marriage.
That's a response to you post, accusing me of opposing social liberties.
If you brought something up, don't claim it's irrelevant. Not the first time, btw.


But this is not a demand for a greater subsidy, it is a demand for a specific freedom to have gay marriages recommended by the state. If those making the demand are also requesting a subsidy at the same time then one can easily support the demand for freedom while opposing the demand for a subsidy.
strawman, see above.


Sometimes the language of postive vs negative rights can become a little confused in these discussions. You appear to be portraying the right of gay couples to marry as a positive right. It is, however, better seen as a negative right - the right to be free of state intervention that prevents one from marrying who one wishes to marry. If you argue that marriage is merely an "entitlement" and hence a positive right, the same could be said for anything else an individual might wish to freely do that another group might wish the State to prevent.

strawman again, as the previous two.




A question:
Can you name any specific social liberty I opposed? (don't try to say I want to deny to homosexuals "the right to marry", as it won't be correct).

You are, on my reading, denying gay couples the right to engage in a marriage that is recognised as such by the State.
This claim is incorrect and you know it's incorrect.
Any other liberties I oppose?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:14 PM
I have suggested that gay couples should be allowed to make arrangements to be recognised as married in the eyes of the law, and to call such arrangements marriages. You clearly appear to disagree.

I agree that they should be allowed to make any arrangement mutually agreed.
Why should an arrangement which is not a marriage be recognised as marriage?

I want my brother to write a document that proves my identity. I want it to be recognised as a passport. If you object to it, you deny my right to have a passport.

Silly, isn't it? Especially part that "you deny my right to have a passport".
However, it's very similar to your accusation that I "deny the rights to homosexuals to get married"

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:28 PM
Ok I think the word of contention here is "naturally". Now most people don't "naturally" rear children at all. I'm not sure of the exact figures but I'd be surprised if it is not the case that the majority of childbirths (in Australia) are performed in a hospital using all sorts of evil technology like nitrogen oxide, pethidine, university trained doctors and midwives.

So people today aren't choosing "natural" childbirth. Are all these marriages shams and missing the point as to what it means to be a marriage?


The strength of you arguments makes me wonder whether you finished primary school.
Everyone else on these forum understood (at least I hope so) what was meant. If it makes it easier for you, think about conception as a result of sexual intercourse. If you need more detailed explanation, you need to talk to someone else.


From what I've been able to tease out of your posts thus far I believe your argument is this...


Marriage is a union of two people who together and without any medical intervention or sperm donor are able to conceive children.


If that's your interpretation, then you failed to understand a single thing from the discussion. I can't keep explaining simple things to you ad infinitum.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 08:32 PM
Yes, across societies conventionally marriage has been between one (or in extremely rare cases) more men and one or more females (who may or may not be old enough to be considered "women" depending on your definition.)
But not same sex! Male and female are complementary, and whatever a homosexual couple might do, marriage it isn't.


I doubt whether you know that all courts that have passed these decrees are actually leftist.
In the sense of using courts to pass legislation that could never get through the ballot, because they know better than the benighted masses. Many of them support the "living constitution" crap.


Also re "legislating from the bench", when a court makes a ruling such as this it is typically forming a judgement that one item of government legislation or agreement overrides another.
Or that somehow the meaning of the constitution must "evolve", always in the direction the left elite wants. But the above is one of Bob Carr's main arguments against a bill of rights (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/columns/how-a-bill-of-rights-lays-a-trap/663234.aspx): that it will put more power in the hand of unelected judges to decide between conflicting "rights".


Often the real responsibility for such decisions lies with governments that sign nebulous international agreements and leave the courts to clean up the mess of what they have actually agreed to.
That's one problem, but not the case for gay "marriage".


Where this advances liberty I am pleased to see it but in other cases it can be retrograde and overcommiting in nature, eg environmental law.
Kyoto? In any case, best for governments to avoid commitments to such nebulous international agreements.


As the court decree is from 2006 and remains in force I assume that attempt must have failed.
You might be right. There is an unfortunate trend for the elected representative to kowtow to unelected judges who try to make law rather than interpret it.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:39 PM
Actually as soon as it is legalised, it ceases to become an oxymoron on the basis you were arguing (ie its illegality).
My objection is based mostly on common sense and marriage raison-d'etre, not necessarily on legality.



Actually Israel's Supreme Court has required the government to accept same-sex marriages performed elsewhere - see here (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/21/africa/ME_GEN_Israel_Same_Sex_Marriages.php).
Thanks, I didn't know about it.

A side note, not relevant to discussion:
Israel's Supreme Court is notorious for it's activism, far exceeding that of many USA court. Israel's system of family law is also very silly.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 08:42 PM
Yes they can, it just means that only one of the couple is the biological parent.
So they lose the ideal of the children living with both biological parents, who can contribute to the child's growth. In many families, mothers are the main ones involved with the children's physical and emotional needs, while fathers emphasise character development. Both parents have unique things to offer the kids precisely because they are complementary. For example, Dr Meg Meeker's book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008jun07_b1.html) shows the benefits for daughters of having good fathers involved in their lives.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 08:49 PM
Israel's Supreme Court is notorious for it's activism, far exceeding that of many USA court. Israel's system of family law is also very silly.
True. Even lefty Alan Dershowitz, in his excellent book The Case for Israel, notes with some concern about ISC rulings that so favour murderous terrorists that they may cost Israeli lives, but nevertheless demands that Israel must fight terrorism "with one hand tied behind its back."

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 08:50 PM
It would be consistent with the notion that children do need parents and that it is better to have two than one. The notion that children need a mother and a father to rear them continuously, or even need to be reared by their own biological parents, is clearly empirically false.
That assumes some empirical evidences, doesn't it?
Can you suggest a better environment for children then living with biological mother and father?
Do you honestly believe there is a better environment?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 09:00 PM
Sorry, missed this one.

So you are saying same-sex adoption has been around for a few millenniums:eh:

Just because heterosexual parenting is sucessful doesn't make homosexual unsucessful. Poor logic.
Analysis of the reasons why family environment of mother and father is best for children would suggest the shortcomings of homosexual adoption.


Secondly how does the selfish gene theory apply to adoption at all?

Selfish gene theory explains why environment of mother and father (preferably biological!) is the best for the child.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 09:20 PM
My objection is based mostly on common sense and marriage raison-d'etre, not necessarily on legality.

As I have pointed out elsewhere when someone on the internet argues that their view is common sense, it usually means they are losing the debate. Many, if not most, views described as common sense online in debates are neither commonly held nor sensible.

I made several points against the idea that childbirth is the overwhelmingly dominant raison-d'etre for marriage and others to the effect that it doesn't even matter if it is, since we accept many other reasons as legitimate and it does no harm to add one more that simply recognises the consensual freedoms of adult couples to commit to each other in a way recognised by the State.


I agree that they should be allowed to make any arrangement mutually agreed.
Why should an arrangement which is not a marriage be recognised as marriage?

Because it has only not been called a "marriage" in the past because of unjustifiable bias rather than for any valid reason.


I want my brother to write a document that proves my identity. I want it to be recognised as a passport. If you object to it, you deny my right to have a passport.

Silly, isn't it? Especially part that "you deny my right to have a passport".
However, it's very similar to your accusation that I "deny the rights to homosexuals to get married"

No it's not; your analogy is way off track for many reasons.

For starters, if you want a document that can be used to prove your identity and you want the government to consider it to be a passport, then you can go get a passport, whoever you are, whatever your sexuality; nobody's stopping you. But if gay couples want to make formal commitments to each other and have those formal commitments recognised as a marriage in Australia, then they are not allowed to do so.

Secondly there are very good reasons why a document that you ask your brother to prepare should not be considered a passport - it has not been through proper checks to ascertain that it really proves your identity. There are no such relevant reasons in the case of gay marriage - simply prejudice, fear and stonewalling based on the currently arbitrary legal definion.


So they lose the ideal of the children living with both biological parents, who can contribute to the child's growth. In many families, mothers are the main ones involved with the children's physical and emotional needs, while fathers emphasise character development. Both parents have unique things to offer the kids precisely because they are complementary. For example, Dr Meg Meeker's book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters shows the benefits for daughters of having good fathers involved in their lives.

Yet more inapplicable research. The study reports many ways in which a good father influences a daughter's life but all it is telling you is how girls with good fathers compare to girls with bad fathers. At least in the excerpt you provide, it does not provide comparable outcomes for girls with two mothers, and to assume anything about those outcomes based on a comparison between good and bad fathers is spurious. If anything it suggests that given how many bad and absent fathers there are out there and what the outcomes for females of bad fathering are, it is well worth finding out whether two-female parenting reduces the risk of such outcomes.


But not same sex! Male and female are complementary, and whatever a homosexual couple might do, marriage it isn't.

Only historically not the same sex because anti-gay prejudice has discouraged people from being openly gay enough to try to marry. And to the point that having differentiated roles is required in a marriage (which is extremely open to dispute and in decline anyway) many gay couples also adopt complementary roles because of the differing personalities and/or attitudes to gender between the two of them.


In the sense of using courts to pass legislation that could never get through the ballot, because they know better than the benighted masses.

Again you need to examine each particular court to see if that is actually the case, and consider the grounds for the decision.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 09:26 PM
It would appear to follow from this that I am a "gay activist", although I am actually one of the most boringly and exclusively heterosexual people on the planet. I will accept being called a "pro-gay activist", if you must.
Interesting. First of all, when I say "gay activist", the key word for me "activist". "Gay" mean the area of activism. Sexual orientation of the activist was of no concern to me, therefore I didn't give it any consideration.
It seems to me that the key word for Kevin was "gay", which was a surprise. I apologise if it caused any ill-feeling (I know it didn't:lol: ).
Second, I did not actually think of you as gay activist (sorry, pro-gay activist), because I was not aware of you campaigning on relevant issues.


But in any case, your claim is false since these redefinitions have acheived support among populations elsewhere that is clearly far beyond the ranks of pro-gay activism. Even those US popular votes in which the gay marriage side is defeated heavily still bear this out given what a tiny proportion of the population are "activists" about anything. The same would doubtless happen here.


Loaded questions are misleading, yet are very good for extracting a desirable answer. (and for that reason loved by demagogues).
If you ask "Should gays be allowed to marry", most people will answer yes as they would think the question about gays' right to live together without fear of oppression. Positive answer to the latter is then interpreted as the support for redefining of the word "marriage".
If the question is asked honestly (as it was in California and other states), the response is quite different.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 09:27 PM
That assumes some empirical evidences, doesn't it?
Can you suggest a better environment for children then living with biological mother and father?
Do you honestly believe there is a better environment?

I'll post what I said again:

It would be consistent with the notion that children do need parents and that it is better to have two than one. The notion that children need a mother and a father to rear them continuously, or even need to be reared by their own biological parents, is clearly empirically false.

I'm posting it again to show that I am not saying in the above that there is a better environment. What I am suggesting is that the word "need" is best left out of this, since if some children can have successful lives despite coming from a single-parent family or being adopted, then obviously children do not need two biological parents - but it may be the case that it is better for them to have two. (Indeed, two parents of some kind are certainly better than one, in general.)

The only empirical evidence required to debunk the claim that children need dual biological parenting is that some children have been successfully raised without it. I hope that this is not in dispute!

Whether there is a better environment than living with biological parents is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is empirical evidence that same-sex parenting environments with two committed parents are significantly worse to such a severe degree that they should not be allowed. Certainly, at least some (and perhaps even most) same-sex couples are better than many failed or failing mixed-sex couples.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 09:45 PM
Interesting. First of all, when I say "gay activist", the key word for me "activist". "Gay" mean the area of activism. Sexual orientation of the activist was of no concern to me, therefore I didn't give it any consideration.
It seems to me that the key word for Kevin was "gay", which was a surprise. I apologise if it caused any ill-feeling (I know it didn't:lol: ).
Second, I did not actually think of you as gay activist (sorry, pro-gay activist), because I was not aware of you campaigning on relevant issues.

I have campaigned but only on a very minor level. For example in 1998 I used my column in a student newspaper to run a public campaign to convince the Tasmanian goverment to cease publishing links to anti-gay websites on government lists of community health organisations. Despite the anti-gay groups making false claims about my sexuality, dismissing my efforts as not significant and predicting I would fail, we won and the websites were given the snip.

I only corrected your use of "gay activist" because it can carry the tacit implication (as displayed by those anti-gay groups I mentioned) that anyone who is a pro-gay political activist is themselves gay or bisexual. But this is not in fact true and during the time leading up to the revoking of Tasmania's barbaric anti-gay laws (up to 25 years jail for consensual intercourse at one stage) there was a lobby group here called Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays.


Loaded questions are misleading, yet are very good for extracting a desirable answer. (and for that reason loved by demagogues).
If you ask "Should gays be allowed to marry", most people will answer yes as they would think the question about gays' right to live together without fear of oppression. Positive answer to the latter is then interpreted as the support for redefining of the word "marriage".

I see nothing whatsoever loaded or dishonest about the question "Should gays be allowed to marry?" If campaigners for a "no" vote cannot explain what consequences that has or doesn't have for the right to live without fear then that would be their problem.

I also see nothing whatsoever loaded or dishonest about the wording of California's Proposition8 that was narrowly passed (haven't looked at the others.) I suspect the result would have been much the same in either case. But it is an issue on which I don't regard popular support levels as relevant except that even the votes on these propositions, which you agree were fairly worded, show that people who support gay marriage are not only "gay activists".

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2008, 09:54 PM
I made several points against the idea that childbirth is the overwhelmingly dominant raison-d'etre for marriage and others to the effect that it doesn't even matter if it is, since we accept many other reasons as legitimate and it does no harm to add one more that simply recognises the consensual freedoms of adult couples to commit to each other in a way recognised by the State.
Your points were about why other reasons are legitimate, not against the idea that children are raison-d'etre. If it's not, please suggest another one.
"consensual freedoms of adult couples to commit to each other" is not disputed (sometimes even if it's not recognised by state)



Because it has only not been called a "marriage" in the past because of unjustifiable bias rather than for any valid reason.

No, because it's not the one. But we seem to go in circles.



No it's not; your analogy is way off track for many reasons.

For starters, if you want a document that can be used to prove your identity and you want the government to consider it to be a passport, then you can go get a passport, whoever you are, whatever your sexuality; nobody's stopping you. But if gay couples want to make formal commitments to each other and have those formal commitments recognised as a marriage in Australia, then they are not allowed to do so.

If a gay couple wants to make a formal commitment to each other, nobody stops them from doing so. (as well as nobody stops my brother from writing a piece of paper confirming my identity. Some might even accept it as a proof of identity).
However, having this commitment recognised as a marriage is a different issue because it's not a marriage. Same as the paper my brother writes is not recognised as passport simple because it's not a passport per definition.


Secondly there are very good reasons why a document that you ask your brother to prepare should not be considered a passport - it has not been through proper checks to ascertain that it really proves your identity. There are no such relevant reasons in the case of gay marriage - simply prejudice, fear and stonewalling based on the currently arbitrary legal definion.
What do fear, prejudice and stonewalling have to do with fact that it's simply not a marriage.

If you insist on same-sex union being called a marriage, then a different term will be needed to define marriage which is a union between a man and a woman.
In this case, however:
1. The idea of marriage as a union between man a woman (and not between two men or two women) was used for millenniums. Therefore same-sex couples should look for a different word.
2. That redefining of the marriage undermines traditional marriage is not a fear-mongering but well deserved concerned.

Let me ask you a question:
Do you really believe that the difference between hetero-sexual and homo-sexual union is so insignificant that it does not even warrant use of different words?

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 10:24 PM
Your points were about why other reasons are legitimate, not against the idea that children are raison-d'etre.
If it's not, please suggest another one.

I don't believe any one reason is so dominant that it can be regarded as the raison-d'etre and I don't believe that an institution that has long served a wide range of purposes should be considered to have a single reason for being.

If you argue that a single thing is the raison-d'etre for an institution then to me that is arguing that without that thing the institution would not exist. Yet I have already argued that even if marriage made no contribution to the raising of children, the institution would still exist. Boris made a good point that one of the main historic functions of marriage in less enlightened times was codifying women's status as belonging to specific husbands (the point of this being to define them as off limits to others).


"consensual freedoms of adult couples to commit to each other" is not disputed (sometimes even if it's not recognised by state)

That it should be recognised by the state is the issue here. Alternatively, the state should abolish all recognition of marriage and find other ways to determine when people are a couple for legal reasons. This would be rather difficult to do since marrying is one of the commoner ways more conventional couples attempt to signify and cement an attitude of commitment (some of them more successfully so than others.)


No, because it's not the one. But we seem to go in circles.

Indeed, but that is not surprising given that your argument is circular.


However, having this commitment recognised as a marriage is a different issue because it's not a marriage.

Again, it becomes a marriage in the eyes of the law and the State if the State decides to recognise it as one. Whether you would still want to consider it to be a marriage by clinging to an outdated definition does not concern me.


Same as the paper my brother writes is not recognised as passport simple because it's not a passport per definition.

It is not a passport because it fails to fill valid functional requirements for a passport, given that it does not actually prove your identity. The requirement that marriage be only for mixed-sex couples has no functional validity. The purpose of marriage as it exists today is to allow two people to unite in a way recognised by the state, which does not concern itself with their reasons. Therefore the state should allow gay couples to do this too.


What do fear, prejudice and stonewalling have to do with fact that it's simply not a marriage.

That they are the only apparent reasons why people refuse to consider expanding their definitions to make it one, since there are no intrinsically valid reasons not to do so. (And "but it isn't one" is not a valid reason given that a case has been made that it should be. "But it isn't one" is stonewalling.)


If you insist on same-sex union being called a marriage, then a different term will be needed to define marriage which is a union between a man and a woman.

No it won't, because it is still a marriage and people can add qualifiers to say what kind of a marriage it is if they really really care.


In this case, however:
1. The idea of marriage as a union between man a woman (and not between two men or two women) was used for millenniums. Therefore same-sex couples should look for a different word.

I have already demolished this idea by pointing out that the restriction of marriage to straight couples for millenia was a product of the persecution of gay people to the extent that they frequently dared not admit to being gay let alone try to publicly commit to their partners. Now that that persecution is on the way out, the past history of the institution of marriage is irrelevant as an argument concerning how the term should be defined and therefore it is time to redefine the term.


2. That redefining of the marriage undermines traditional marriage is not a fear-mongering but well deserved concerned.

You have failed to demonstrate any well-deserved concerns.

The fact is that gay people getting married does not stop straight people getting married either traditionally or non-traditionally and cherishing their marriage. If people think less of their own marriage because gay people are allowed to marry too then those people should seek counselling for their issues. It is like men thinking less of being allowed to vote because women were allowed to do it too. If a privelege is diminished in value to some when it is available to all then that questions the attitudes of those who feel diminished by the reform - they are just being silly.


Do you really believe that the difference between hetero-sexual and homo-sexual union is so insignificant that it does not even warrant use of different words?

I've already addressed this by pointing out that there are massive differences between a wide range of kinds of mixed-sex marriages but we still use the term "marriage" for all of them. Therefore we should also allow "gay marriage" and if people want to use qualifiers to describe what kind of marriage they are discussing then they can.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Boris made a good point that one of the main historic functions of marriage in less enlightened times was codifying women's status as belonging to specific husbands (the point of this being to define them as off limits to others).
And vice versa, although not always practised.

TheJoker
16-11-2008, 11:46 PM
Analysis of the reasons why family environment of mother and father is best for children would suggest the shortcomings of homosexual adoption.

Well I don't think you can make such broad generalisations with any accuracy. I have certainly seen more well adjusted children that have grown-up in a single parent family than some coming from a dual parent family. The actual performance of parents has more to do with the outcomes, than gender roles IMO.


Selfish gene theory explains why environment of mother and father (preferably biological!) is the best for the child.

Again its far too broad a generalisation, plenty of parents who neglect their own biological offspring and vice versa. Perhaps Jono would like to comment I believe he mentioned he has been involved in an adoption. Jono do you feel that makes you less of a parent than say the local blugger down the TAB who might happen to bed biological father of his children?

Rincewind
17-11-2008, 08:30 AM
The strength of you arguments makes me wonder whether you finished primary school.
Everyone else on these forum understood (at least I hope so) what was meant. If it makes it easier for you, think about conception as a result of sexual intercourse. If you need more detailed explanation, you need to talk to someone else.


If that's your interpretation, then you failed to understand a single thing from the discussion. I can't keep explaining simple things to you ad infinitum.

I understand your desire to disengage from a argument you are roundly losing. By try to do it a little more gracefully next time.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 08:40 AM
Again its far too broad a generalisation, plenty of parents who neglect their own biological offspring and vice versa. Perhaps Jono would like to comment I believe he mentioned he has been involved in an adoption. Jono do you feel that makes you less of a parent than say the local blugger down the TAB who might happen to bed biological father of his children?
Having thought about it I realised that better way to say would be:
"Selfish-gene theory explains why parents have a vested interest in their children well-being."
As for examples of bad parents - any large statistical sample is bound to have outliers.
What is a blugger?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 08:43 AM
I understand your desire to disengage from a argument you are roundly losing. By try to do it a little more gracefully next time.
I can't be loosing an argument to you for a very simple reason - you are yet to make one.
As for the grace - look in the mirror first.
However, I do apologise for sinking to the level that can be viewed in some distant proximity to yours .

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 08:52 AM
Boris made a good point that one of the main historic functions of marriage in less enlightened times was codifying women's status as belonging to specific husbands (the point of this being to define them as off limits to others).
Ownership brings responsibility. Why do you think men wanted to own a woman in those less enlightened times? Getting laid might be the reason, but prostitutes, as well as other less expensive arrangements, were available at those times as well.

IMHO, the main reason was to more reliably establish paternity (DNA testing wasn't available until few decades ago).
Given that the raison-d'etre for sex is reproduction (for all species), no wonder that reproduction was the determined factor for any opposite gender arrangement or relationship.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 08:57 AM
Question(s) for Kevin:
Suppose marriage is redefined in a way that same-sex union falls under new definition.

1. Does it mean that same-sex couple will get marriage certificate?
2. Marriage certificate has "wife" and "husband" on it. If answer to #1 is yes, then how do you propose to redefine those two words?

Rincewind
17-11-2008, 09:04 AM
I can't be loosing an argument to you for a very simple reason - you are yet to make one.

Oh you're definitely loosing, Igor. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 09:09 AM
Well I don't think you can make such broad generalisations with any accuracy. I have certainly seen more well adjusted children that have grown-up in a single parent family than some coming from a dual parent family. The actual performance of parents has more to do with the outcomes, than gender roles IMO.
Yet although some people try to explain it away, kids in homes led by their two married parents overwhelmingly do better. Sure, there are exceptions, just as there are smokers who live long lives and individual women stronger than individual men.


Perhaps Jono would like to comment I believe he mentioned he has been involved in an adoption. Jono do you feel that makes you less of a parent than say the local blugger down the TAB who might happen to bed biological father of his children?
As usual, there is confusion with an ideal and ability to cope with subobtimal situations. And I am married, so any kids would have both a male and female role model.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 09:09 AM
Oh you're definitely loosing, Igor. :lol:
Dream on!

Speaking of losing an argument, look at the way the Gay-Stapo is reacting to the loss of Prop8, with genuine threats and acts of violence (http://townhall.com/Columnists/MattBarber/2008/11/16/counterfeit_marriage_and_its_counterfeit_movement? page=2). Of course, the usual "we need hate crime laws" suspects are silent on this real hatred and threatened violence.

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 09:37 AM
Yet although some people try to explain it away, kids in homes led by their two married parents overwhelmingly do better.

I'd like to see the results of such studies. Could you tell me the name(s) of the authors of the study that you are basing your assertions, I'd like to have a look at the methodology, see whther they correct for factors like household income, education, suburb etc.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 09:42 AM
I'd like to see the results of such studies. Could you tell me the name(s) of the authors of the study that you are basing your assertions, I'd like to have a look at the methodology, see whther they correct for factors like household income, education, suburb etc.
Stop your childish bluffs. Perhaps the factors to be "corrected for" are actually other results of being married. I've already mentioned how families with two married parents tend to be wealthier than those with a single parent. If you want lack of correction, it's the racial grievance mongers who do NOT correct for marital status when discussing high rates of black poverty.

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 09:45 AM
And I am married, so any kids would have both a male and female role model.

The comment made in regards to the idea that the selfish gene theory predicts better parenting by biological parents. Even if somebody could show me that such an argument held "ceteris paribus". I would suggest that other factors are a far better predictor of sucessful parenting outcomes than biological realtionship.

It had nothing to do with gender roles. That is separate argument that gender roles are important in a child development. And yet again nobody (unless I've missed it) is backing there argument up with serious research.

Rincewind
17-11-2008, 09:45 AM
Dream on!

Who would have guessed the satire would be lost on you? :hmm:

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 09:49 AM
Stop your childish bluffs. Perhaps the factors to be "corrected for" are actually other results of being married. I've already mentioned how families with two married parents tend to be wealthier than those with a single parent. If you want lack of correction, it's the racial grievance mongers who do NOT correct for marital status when discussing high rates of black poverty.

But gay parents are likely to have a combined income as well therefore be equally wealthy as married couples. That was my point. :rolleyes:

Secondly I am not the one bluffing, you are by making numerous assertions without any serious research to back-up such claims. I have just been calling your bluff.

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 10:14 AM
What is a blugger?
It's an incorrect spelling of bludger. Given the context should have simple enough to work out.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 10:34 AM
Secondly I am not the one bluffing, you are by making numerous assertions without any serious research to back-up such claims. I have just been calling your bluff.
Rubbish; human history shows the benefits of kids being raised by both parents. It's up to proponents of gay "marriage" to demonstrate why the term "marriage" should be redefined.

It's notable that the Gay Patriot Group, which supports gay "marriage" (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/10/27/a-smart-students-nutshell-case-for-gay-marriage/):


“the desire for gay marriage is not merely a fight for the legal and social benefits, but also a desire for the serious commitments that marriage entails.”

But by persuasion not by court imposition (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/10/coming-around-to-my-strategy-on-gay-marriage/), recognizes that Gay Marriage, a Change that is a Privilege not a Right (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/12/gay-marriage-a-change-that-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/), and that it really is a change from the norm, and recognizes that not all who oppose gay "marriage" hate homosexuals whereas much hate is coming FROM the the gay community (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/13/more-hate-against-8/). It also notes that "honour" killings of gay relatives is non-existent among evangelical Christians (http://www.gaypatriot.net/category/christianity/), but there is silence among the left about Islamic "honour" killings, and:


Further, most gay bashings that are reported in the USA take place at significantly higher rates in urban locations — Blue States, if you will, that are allegedly more “tolerant”.

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 11:26 AM
Rubbish; human history shows the benefits of kids being raised by both parents.

And yet you persist to make claims without evidence even after your bluff has been called.

You cannot say that being raised by two parents is more beneficial than being raised one parent unless you compare the outcomes of the two cases. Just because one happens to be minority position (single parent), does not imply that it is inferior at producing outcomes. As far as I can tell your argument isn't based on either logic or fact.

Desmond
17-11-2008, 11:27 AM
Ownership brings responsibility. Why do you think men wanted to own a woman in those less enlightened times? Getting laid might be the reason, but prostitutes, as well as other less expensive arrangements, were available at those times as well.

IMHO, the main reason was to more reliably establish paternity (DNA testing wasn't available until few decades ago).
Given that the raison-d'etre for sex is reproduction (for all species), no wonder that reproduction was the determined factor for any opposite gender arrangement or relationship.And the reason fo establishing paternity being *drumroll* to establish ownership of the offspring.

Rincewind
17-11-2008, 11:29 AM
And the reason fo establishing paternity being *drumroll* to establish ownership of the offspring.

Well the maternity of the offspring is usually obvious.

Desmond
17-11-2008, 11:37 AM
Well the maternity of the offspring is usually obvious.Dunno, some discussion on this forum have really changed what I thought should be obvious to some people. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 11:57 AM
It's an incorrect spelling of bludger.
What, the Italian-Australian version?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 12:55 PM
And the reason fo establishing paternity being *drumroll* to establish ownership of the offspring.
No. The sexual instincts serve the purpose of reproduction. Those that are more successful in maximising the number of descendants are more likely to pass their genes. Men that are less successful have their genes wiped out from the gene pool.

What is the benefit (from the reproduction point of view) to the man to raise someone else child?

In short:
Men want to guarantee paternity.
Women want to guarantee ongoing support for themselves and their children.
Marriage serves that purpose.

Edit: My response assumed you were serious and not trying to humour. Now I am not that sure:D

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 12:57 PM
It's an incorrect spelling of bludger. Given the context should have simple enough to work out.
I wouldn't ask if I worked it out.

TheJoker
17-11-2008, 01:05 PM
What, the Italian-Australian version?

More like "can't spell without the help of Microsoft" generation version:lol:

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 11:30 PM
Question(s) for Kevin:
Suppose marriage is redefined in a way that same-sex union falls under new definition.

1. Does it mean that same-sex couple will get marriage certificate?

Can't see why not.


2. Marriage certificate has "wife" and "husband" on it. If answer to #1 is yes, then how do you propose to redefine those two words?

I don't. I'm sure the cost of printing certificates with either "wife" and "wife" or "husband" and "husband" as the case may be for the small proportion of marriages involving gay couples would be negligible. Alternatively if "husband" and "wife" are considered to carry too much heterosexual baggage even in a gay marriage context then there are plenty of suitable alternatives (even "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2" would be fine). It's a non-issue.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 11:49 PM
Ownership brings responsibility. Why do you think men wanted to own a woman in those less enlightened times? Getting laid might be the reason, but prostitutes, as well as other less expensive arrangements, were available at those times as well.

Prostitution has generally been illegal while promiscuity has often been frowned upon socially and more importantly has historically carried a great risk of sexually-transmitted disease (although that is less the case now if all involved are careful). So even if sex was the only non-childbirth reason for male-dominated marriages where women were expected to simply obey, it is easy to see why many men would avoid the alternative.

However, another thing that made male-dominated marriages attractive to many men was that they could obtain an obedient servant to do all the housework.

Of course, yes, many men also liked such marriages because it gave them the opportunity to father incredibly large numbers of children and be confident those children were theirs. But once again, the reasons for systems in which men controlled the institution of marriage were nowhere near confined to childbirth.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-11-2008, 10:38 AM
I don't. I'm sure the cost of printing certificates with either "wife" and "wife" or "husband" and "husband" as the case may be for the small proportion of marriages involving gay couples would be negligible. Alternatively if "husband" and "wife" are considered to carry too much heterosexual baggage even in a gay marriage context then there are plenty of suitable alternatives (even "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2" would be fine). It's a non-issue.
So, what is your suggestion?
Do you suggest to leave "wife" and "husband"?
Do you suggest to replace it with "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2"?
Anything else?

Desmond
18-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Igor, I think that if you need to argue that the forms will be too difficult to design or administer, then you have lost this debate.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 10:54 AM
Igor, I think that if you need to argue that the forms will be too difficult to design or administer, then you have lost this debate.
It was hardly a major part of the argument.

Desmond
18-11-2008, 11:09 AM
It was hardly a major part of the argument.Exactly. Why bother asking Kevin for the specifics of the marriage form?

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 11:40 AM
However, another thing that made male-dominated marriages attractive to many men was that they could obtain an obedient servant to do all the housework.
And attractive to women (cf. Jane Austen novels), because they could have someone going out to work in hard and even dangerous jobs to earn money for them to spend. Many women still prefer a husband to welfare from Nanny State.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2008, 09:28 PM
So, what is your suggestion?
Do you suggest to leave "wife" and "husband"?
Do you suggest to replace it with "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2"?
Anything else?

There is such a wide range of satisfactory solutions that I see no reason to specify any particular one.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 08:48 AM
There is such a wide range of satisfactory solutions that I see no reason to specify any particular one.
If there is such a wide range of satisfactory solutions, could you suggest at least one?
Unless, of course, there is a specific reason you don't want to provide any.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Igor, I think that if you need to argue that the forms will be too difficult to design or administer, then you have lost this debate.
Boris, people claiming the other side lost the debate are usually the ones who cannot back up their arguments.

It is relevant, and I hope Kevin will finally answer the question.

Desmond
19-11-2008, 08:52 AM
Boris, people claiming the other side lost the debate are usually the ones who cannot back up their arguments.

It is relevant, and I hope Kevin will finally answer the question.Yes, Igor it is very important. Perhaps we will also discuss what font to use on the form. I'm sure that is very important too. :hand:

TheJoker
19-11-2008, 10:24 AM
Yes, Igor it is very important. Perhaps we will also discuss what font to use on the form. I'm sure that is very important too. :hand:

Absolutely! I favour a traditional approach such as helvetica. I oppose any new form of typeface for the simple reason that it has no historical or traditonal precedent. Ifind that to be the most powerful reasoning imaginable and cannot understand why the type-stapo want to force us to new typefaces that human history shows are obviously inferior;)

Sound like familiar argument

morebeer
19-11-2008, 10:52 AM
Absolutely! I favour a traditional approach such as helvetica. I oppose any new form of typeface for the simple reason that it has no historical or traditonal precedent. Ifind that to be the most powerful reasoning imaginable and cannot understand why the type-stapo want to force us to new typefaces that human history shows are obviously inferior;)

Sound like familiar argument

Actually it may be Helvetica's bastard cousin Arial medium:)

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2008, 10:56 PM
It is relevant, and I hope Kevin will finally answer the question.

I have already done so by indicating that there is a wide range of acceptable answers.


If there is such a wide range of satisfactory solutions, could you suggest at least one?

Again I have already done so. I suggested that simply "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2" would be fine for same-sex couples (or "person 1" and "person 2" for that matter.) Or if the couple were happy with it then just using "wife" for both spaces for an all-female marriage or "husband" for both spaces for an all-male marriage would be fine. As I've pointed out the cost of having a certificate custom-printed would be negligible especially in the context of the sort of sums people spend on their marriage.


Unless, of course, there is a specific reason you don't want to provide any.

This kind of inuendo is really pretty silly especially given that I have already given your question, the actual point of which remains unexplained, far more time of day than it deserves.

How about this: below the space for the names put another space where people can put their own customised title as to what they want their role in the marriage to be called! :D

Anyway, onto a hopefully more significant angle: Jono, in disputing comparisons between anti-gay prejudice and racism, suggested that black voters (who overwhelmingly voted down Proposition 8) saw straight through those comparisons.

This is an ironic claim considering that it is coming from someone who also argues (or quotes other people arguing) how quite a few black Americans have little idea about keeping a marriage together anyway, and how this is the cause of their greater tendency to poverty, and who also gives other evidence/argument for disfunctionalities in American black culture.

One aspect of parts of both black and Hispanic American cultures that is being argued to have something to do with the Proposition 8 vote is the emphasis on macho male attitudes. According to this theory some of the voters were too busy being he-men (or thinking all men should be he-men) to give too much consideration to whether they were kicking a fellow disadvantaged group (or to see themselves as one in the first place.)

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2008, 10:06 AM
Again I have already done so. I suggested that simply "marrying partner 1" and "marrying partner 2" would be fine for same-sex couples (or "person 1" and "person 2" for that matter.) Or if the couple were happy with it then just using "wife" for both spaces for an all-female marriage or "husband" for both spaces for an all-male marriage would be fine. As I've pointed out the cost of having a certificate custom-printed would be negligible especially in the context of the sort of sums people spend on their marriage.

The cost of custom made certificate is, of course, not an issue. The fact that certificates should be custom made (or of different type) is not an issue either.
The discussion was whether same-sex couple are different enough from marriage to use different words (and not redefine marriage).
Even the fact that certificates for same-sex couples should be different then opposite-sex couples (as you can see, on that particular occasion I did not use the word marriage) shows that the two are sufficiently different. It shows that the difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couple is of a different nature then difference between different kinds of opposite-sex couple.

It simply reinforces my argument that the marriage and same-sex union are two different things. Using the same word "marriage" is misleading.

TheJoker
20-11-2008, 11:55 AM
It simply reinforces my argument that the marriage and same-sex union are two different things. Using the same word "marriage" is misleading.

Semantic argument based on your personal definition of marriage.


The broad definition of marriage according to both Oxford and Princeton is:

An intimate union

For example I can "The play was a marriage between ballet and theatre" and that is perfectly correct, and contains not mention of a man or a woman (husband or wife).

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 12:16 PM
The primary definition by Dictionary.com is:


the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Then


the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

Even in some figurative usage, the man and woman is retained:


Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle.

It has a PC sop for an alternative usage:


a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.


For example I can "The play was a marriage between ballet and theatre" and that is perfectly correct, and contains not mention of a man or a woman (husband or wife).
Good grief, that's a figurative use. What next, a mother can now be a parent of either sex, since there are phrases like "mother of pearl" and "necessity is the mother of invention"?

TheJoker
20-11-2008, 12:34 PM
The primary definition by Dictionary.com is:

Dictionary.com the authorative source on language:rolleyes:


The fact remains that marriage is defined by both Princeton University and Oxford University as "an intimate union" therefore any intimate union can be correctly reffered to as a marriage. There is no requirement that the union involve a man and a woman. It is true that a man and a woman can form "an intimate union" and therefore a marriage. It's only in legal terms that marriage requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. Same-sex union only require a legal re-definition of the word marriage. It does not involve re-defining language.

So the semantic "re-definition debate" is closed.:hand:

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 01:59 PM
Dictionary.com the authorative source on language:rolleyes:
It's a dictionary.


The fact remains that marriage is defined by both Princeton University and Oxford University as "an intimate union" therefore any intimate union can be correctly reffered to as a marriage.
Universities—dens of politically correct crap.

Gay "marriage" proponents still can't win at the ballot box, even in loopy left CA, and they are sore losers.