The costs of gay marriage

[babe]

As I said earlier, rights that are based on exclusion will lose out to rights based on inclusion. Your imposition based on the right to exclusivity is trumped when in direct opposition of imposition based on the right to inclusiveness.

The semantic argument is required, since it comes down to the definition of a word to those that wish to exclude, after all. Much in the same way the nuclear family isn't the "traditional" form of a family in human history, heterosexual monogamous marriage isn't really the "traditional" form of marriage.

When Bush wanted to ban gay marriage: https://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm




Even in the US history, the idea of marriage has changed. Think a 1950's marriage is the same as a 2010's marriage? https://users.rcn.com/bendesky/about/cbta/50swoman.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only four key arguments for the exclusive side: I don't like it, morally wrong, no kids/bad family structure, not traditional.

Traditional marriage is impossible to truly define, and certainly not universal in any way, since there is a bevy of research on what marriage has meant to humans across time, so that's not a valid argument. The foundation of marriage is not exclusive to sex and child rearing, since child bearing and rearing occur outside of marriage, and marriage occurs outside of sex and child bearing and rearing, making the child angel flimsy at best. Is the belief that banning two people from having the same legal (and not same but separate) status as two other people less of a moral? Do morals have a ranking scale? If not, than morals cancel each other out.

That leaves that you just don't like it. Not going to win much with that as your only strong argument.

Here's kind of an interesting read on reaction to the Supreme Court case.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-makes-us-human/201303/ask-anthropologist-about-marriage

So I read the link. I was a regular reader of Psychology Today a while back.

I have been an opponent of every conservative law or effort to "protect the family" such as constitutional amendments or legally defining "marriage" as "one man and one woman". For many years. . .. when I was maybe 19 to 30, I was an advocate for gay marriage. I consider the issue hijacked and the hijackers to be statists who put government power as the objective of the debate.

A careful reading of my posts here will show someone who's willing to think about it, that what I am opposing is not equality under the law, but the loss of personal prerogatives.

We have lots of financial sorts of legal entities that people can choose to form to achieve specific objectives, and we have different names for all of them, and people can use those names in discussions to get a clear understanding of what is proposed, and what may be expected.

I consider the Prop 8 initiative and it advocates and counsel pretty stupid, but lovable human beings and my sympathies go out to them. . . . . simply because the change-agent pushers on the liberal side are even more statist and less attuned to tolerance.

I'm pretty sure that our statists will achieve their increment of state power, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone will be screwed.

We can have different social institutions, just like we have different financial institutions, keeping "marriage" as it is on it's changing trajectory as people do change in our changing times, and invent some other forms of quickly-understood contractual relations recognized and protected by appropriate law. We don't need to give the federal government the power to homogenize us---all right you gays, learn to laugh a little---according to some supposedly "progressive" vision of a new mankind.

It's a pretty good argument about the semantics and how the inclusive definition might win out, but it's not the relevant one. Look at the hate the GLBT advocates throw out. In Utah, there was a rally of gays in the state capitol building one day. No one came to harass them or disrupt their meeting. Another day the folks for "the family" did a rally. oh, about 500 rude and loud, taunting and disruptive and disrespectful opponents showed up with their banners. You really don't have the truth with that point about who has the "inclusive" definitions of human rights.

"Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout, Hate drew a circle to keep me out. But wit and I had the wit to win, Love drew a circle that drew him in"

the question is, really about how to keep the government from telling us what to believe, what to say, who to associate with, and what to do. I say you don't do that by re-defining marriage or wiping away people's sense of personal choice. So if you want to draw more religious or otherwise skeptical folks in, do it in a way that shows respect for them and understanding if not sympathy for their ways and views. I'd like to convert some gays into my view about achieving personal rights through respecting others and finding mutually-satisfying solutions, rather than a divisive and demeaning endless argument.

 

[Stoked]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

 

[moevillini]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

wait, which side were you on?


j/k


hopefully the discussion will get back on track

 

[Stoked]

wait, which side were you on?


j/k


hopefully the discussion will get back on track

To be honest I am kind of in the middle.

 

[moevillini]

sort of outside the specific realm of this discussion, but related in the sense that it pertains to the definition of "family" and had financial implications based upon that definition...


when we bought our house and moved into our community 30 years ago, in order to qualify for a "FAMILY" discount for various Park District and YMCA programs (and others, but those were the primary providers at that time) a family HAD to have both a mother and a father. Single parents with children were excluded based upon that definition, unless a death certificate was provided for the "missing" parent. Needless to say, as single-parent households were starting to become more common at about that time, people starting questioning and protesting that policy and it was changed within a few years.

I was somewhat involved in a few programs at our local Y and served on a committee looking into changing the policy at that time, and it's interesting that much of the reasoning prohibit same-sex marriage is similar to reasons some folks were giving to justify denying the family discount to single-parent households.

 

[margodydek]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

This is what drives me nuts. There are idiots on both sides of the argument, but I can't stand how the supposed people who are all about "no judging" sure do a heck of a lot of judging. I like how they assume that anyone on the other side of the argument is either incompetent, ignorant, or just a flat-out bigot. Are there those types of people on the "conservative" side? Sure. But to assume all of them are is quite contrary to their whole "no judging" mantra.

However, with regards to the ignorant bigots, feel free to judge all you want.

 

[Gameface]

Denying gay marriage seems like the kid who is playing with one of his toys but sure as hell isn't going to let the other kid play with the other toy he's not playing with.

What does gay marriage hurt? If there isn't an answer to that question then how is any of this justified?

 

[Gameface]

Let's be clear about something. There are gay people who want to be married. If force wasn't being used to stop them then they'd go ahead and do it. This debate is about whether or not we as a society want to continue to participate in the use of force against these individuals, or if we should allow them to conduct their personal lives as they see fit.

Several are saying we should continue to exert force against people to prevent them from acting in the way they choose. Their actions will injure no one. Our actions as a society to deny them their freedom cause real tangible damages to them in a variety of ways.

I would say since we as a society are actively injuring a portion of our society the threshold for justification should be high.

Are there any significant justifications for our actions as a society? Is the sole justification that it is a violation of the predominant moral beliefs? Is that a valid justification? Is that enough of a justification?

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

 

[One Brow]

I thought you were saying that argument had been made in the 1960s. Did I miss something?

You're right, I did say 50s or 60s. That was just a quick hit, I'll bo a more thorough check. I think we agree the statement was equally ludicrous in 1883.

And you wonder why people complain about your semantics?

Not at all. However, as you said yourself, you haven't taken the time to really clarify your initial post.

You're trying to use a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument. See Scat's statement that I quoted. Just because not all heterosexual marriages lead to children does not mean that heterosexual marriages are not FUNDAMENTALLY different than homosexual unions, which CANNOT lead to children.

Except, they can. Among the examples I included were surrogacy and fertilization. If a wife is infertile and the child has a couple via surrogacy, we still view the wife as a parent of that child. If the husband if infertile and the wife uses a sperm donor, the husband is still the parent. It seems to me that in both cases, the marriage led to the children (do you disagree?). Yet, you would seemingly (correct me if I misunderstand) say surrogacy for two men, or or sperm fertilization for two women, does not result in the union leading to children. Assuming I understand your positions correctly, can you see why I find this a blatantly unfair assessment on your part?

 

[One Brow]

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

I'll concede it.

 

[margodydek]

Denying gay marriage seems like the kid who is playing with one of his toys but sure as hell isn't going to let the other kid play with the other toy he's not playing with.

What does gay marriage hurt? If there isn't an answer to that question then how is any of this justified?

No one can say for sure if any "hurt" would result from changing the definition of marriage. However, same-sex marriage would be the most radical change in the history of western civilization in terms of a social institution. It would in essence render genders obsolete. Some people still believe that there are differences between males and females, and that rendering future generations' genders meaningless may bring about unforseen consequences.

A lot of people think that conservatives fear an impending apocalypse as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. Far from the truth. To be honest, I would think if both sides took a step back they'd see this is quite a trivial matter considering the other problems our society is currently facing.

 

[One Brow]

So you're saying that person A can treat person B with hatred, without actually feeling hatred? I'm not sure I buy that.

If you can't tell the difference between a behavior that expresses hatred, and one that does not, then you are treating someone with hatred.

Some examples from recent studies:

After controlling for dress, background, speech patterns, etc., black and white men went to various locations in New York looking for employment. For every group, people without a criminal record were hired/upgraded at a much higher rate than those with a criminal record. However, white men with a criminal record were hired/upgraded at about the same rate as as black men without a criminal record. You will find very few employers in New York that say they hate black people, but in their hiring, they treat black people as if they were criminals. How is that different from treating them with hatred? Do you think that it matters to a black applicant whether the employer feels hatred, if he typically will be treated like a criminal regardless?

After controlling for other background issues, resumes examined by employers typically rated applicants with typically female names as similarly qualified to applicants with typically male names who were a full degree status lower (that is, women with bachelors were rated as about the same as men with associates, women with masters as about the same as men with bachelors). There was little difference in this effect between male and female employers, and very few of the employers would say they hate women. Yet, how is this evaluation pattern different from those who say they hate women? Does it really matter to women applicants is the evaluator feels hatred, when they will be treated as less worthy of a job regardless?

 

[One Brow]

Not without outside intervention. Then again you know this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

If outside intervention is used in a heterosexual union, does that invalidate the children as belonging to that couple, in your opinion?

 

[Scat]

If outside intervention is used in a heterosexual union, does that invalidate the children as belonging to that couple, in your opinion?

Not at all. The difference being, a hetero marriage can produce offspring with no outside intervention in most cases. A gay marriage will require outside intervention every single time. That is a fundamental difference.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

Oh, I see how it is. You make come claim and if you don't get an argument claim that you are right because you didn't get a response.

I stand my ground, and deny your claim. I disagree with your statements. If you want my answers and the why reread the entire thread again please as I don't really have enough desire to run around in circles again just to play the word games. The answers are in there somewhere. If you really want to know, you will find them. If you only want to argue and attempt to "win", you will find that too.

I'm convinced someone that is entirely focused on seeing bigotry will find it. Someone intent to see harm, will see it. Someone intent to see misogyny will find it. Someone intent to find understanding, will find it. Someone intent to find patience, will find it. Someone intent to argue, will find it.

I do not concede, I just refuse to argue in circles. I'm going back to the more serious threads about Buckner and the firing of Ty Corbin.

 

[Gameface]

Oh, I see how it is. You make come claim and if you don't get an argument claim that you are right because you didn't get a response.

I stand my ground, and deny your claim. I disagree with your statements. If you want my answers and the why reread the entire thread again please as I don't really have enough desire to run around in circles again just to play the word games. The answers are in there somewhere. If you really want to know, you will find them. If you only want to argue and attempt to "win", you will find that too.

I'm convinced someone that is entirely focused on seeing bigotry will find it. Someone intent to see harm, will see it. Someone intent to see misogyny will find it. Someone intent to find understanding, will find it. Someone intent to find patience, will find it. Someone intent to argue, will find it.

I do not concede, I just refuse to argue in circles. I'm going back to the more serious threads about Buckner and the firing of Ty Corbin.

Well I was joking because my feelings were hurt that my genius post was passed over.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

No one can say for sure if any "hurt" would result from changing the definition of marriage. However, same-sex marriage would be the most radical change in the history of western civilization in terms of a social institution. It would in essence render genders obsolete. Some people still believe that there are differences between males and females, and that rendering future generations' genders meaningless may bring about unforseen consequences.

A lot of people think that conservatives fear an impending apocalypse as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. Far from the truth. To be honest, I would think if both sides took a step back they'd see this is quite a trivial matter considering the other problems our society is currently facing.

I made the comparisons about 20 pages ago but your argument is almost identicle to the arguments made in the past about slavery. In fact, it's so close it's scary. Those who remained pro slavery were very adamant about the fact that there were differences between blacks and whites and that freeing the blacks would have unforseen consequences for future generations. They were afraid of things that ended up being trivial and small-minded when looked back upon.

The legalization of same sex marriage is on the horizon and I think we'll certainly see it in our lifetime. When it does happen, society will not start to crumble immediately or in the future because of it.

 

[One Brow]

More often, or just the times you care about so it makes more of an impression on you? link?

I've got you, right here, as an example (more detail on that below). If you are looking for a scientific study, I don't think you can scientifically record people's intentions with any accuracy, so while there may be such a study, I wouldn't put much stock in it.

Also are we to the point that we assume guilty first and force a person accused of something to try to defend themselves with that label attached?

Maybe one day, you'll get to the point where you assume other people can be reasonable when they are pointing out behaviors, instead of assuming they are being unreasonable, and treat it like a problem to be fixed instead of a crime.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you wrong? Is that the negative world you live in?

I live in a world where where it's important to me to understand other people, my effect upon them, and treat them like they are reasonable adults. Why do you think that is negative?

Because hatred is active, I'm pretty sure every person that is actually bigoted knows who/what they hate and don't need it pointed out to them.

You seemedo focused on hatred, so let me remind you of what bigot/bigoted actually means:

McMilland: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/bigoted

someone who is bigoted has opinions that most people think are unreasonable, especially about politics, race, or religion, and refuses to consider other people’s opinions

American Heritage: https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/bigot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You'll not only Webster's mentions hate, and even then only as an extreme version of bigotry. Bigots can be very polite, compassionate people who are nonetheless so convinced of the rightness of their position that they cant even listen/read/think about/comprehend to other people's opinions. Archie Bunker is not a prototypical bigot, he's a stereotypical bigot.

Let me clarify, as you seem intent to be coy.
I have labeled you as a child abuser because your daughter wanted a candy bar from the store and you told her no.... in public... in front of witnesses! You cur!

Funny, that's just the type of thing my wife says (except, she'll use a milder word than "abuse", but that's a difference of magnitude, not type).

There wasn't anything coy about my answer. You were just surprised at my standard. As I said, I think you are a typically reasonable person. I think that if you feel a particular behavior is child abuse (even if it is refusing to buy a candy bar), than at least I should consider why you might think so. I might ultimately reject your reasoning, but if I think you are generally reasonable, then it in my own best interest to hear you out first.

What do you think it says about you that you seem to have presumed my reaction would be to immediately dismiss such a claim?

You are the one comparing them, ...

Who are you trying to kid? We're in the middle of a discussion about how people interpret words and actions towards disadvantages groups, you come up with an analogy of someone interpreting words and actions towards children, and then claim the analogy has nothing to do with the topic under discussion? I believe you when you says you did not intended to compare disadvantaged people to children. You still did.

You take an analogy and see what you want to see Shelob. One might say you try to spin your webs and catch people in them purposefully.

I didn't ask you to create an analogy. I certainly didn't ask you to use children in it. That came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate people in disadvantaged groups with children, as opposed to some other type of people.

Is this your definition of what you are doing? Are you asking for my validation?

Not sure if you are serious. I was referencing my previous comment in a rhetorical question.

I don't think its a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents at all. He is lumping all people accused of being racists and misogynists and saying they just have to deal with it because it is the truth. (with few exceptions)

Actually, he is lumping all comments that express misogyny and racism, and saying that if you are told that your expressing racism and misogyny, you should deal with why your comments came across that way.

That is only true of people that are truly racists and misogynists.

Cromwell does not define or label people in this fashion to begin with, as the post made clear. There is no such thing as a "true racist" or 'true misogynist" that is completely separate from non-racists and non-misogynists. That's dodge that people who entertain infrequent or mild racist/misogynistic thoughts use to separate themselves from the problem, instead of admitting that, sometimes, they are part of the problem.

I don't know what Ian's definition of those words is and who he thinks fit in those categories,

If only Cromwell had devoted some time in that post to making clear what he means by therm. Maybe it would have read something like this:

As I’ve said countless times before, the phrase “a racist” is meaningless, as is “a misogynist”. There is no standard, not even a colloquial one, by which someone goes from being “not a racist” to being “a racist”. In the moment that you are doing something racist, you are “a racist”; in the moment that you are doing something misogynistic, you are “a misogynist”. That moment ends the moment your behaviour ends; the alternative is that everyone who has ever said or done anything racist is “a racist” forever, which would include roughly 100% of the population, thus making the phrase useless as a descriptor.

So, seriously, what do you find so confusing about that definition? I mean, it's fairly plain English. One might almost think that, as you read it, you did not even seriously consider the meaning of the sentences, that you don't really tolerate words being used in a way you're not used to, that your refusal to take this passage as written borders on being obstinate. I only wish there was a good word in the English language for that sort of devotion to one's own opinions.

If I hated women and/or held them in contempt in any way I would know about it.

Sure. It's not that you hold them in contempt, you just naturally equate them to your children when you make analogies about them in your mind. Honestly, who needs you to admit, or even be aware of, to hatred or contempt in such circumstances?

I disagree with plenty of things I don't hate.

Who you hate, or acknowledge hating, isn't even relevant to anyone but you.

I don't go out of my way to harm or hurt anyone on the other side of these disagreements in any way. I speak my peace as respectfully as I can, and go from there.

I've said many times that I think you are by disposition kind, fair and compassionate. That's why I think you are worth all this discussion.

 

[One Brow]

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state.

Furthermore, my suspicion is that colton would not make such a distinction for heterosexual couples. That's why it strikes me as a rationalization, not an argument.

 

[One Brow]

In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has,

Do you think a person word choice reflects their opinions? In this situation, you could have referred to "evolving the meaning of marriage" or "altering the meaning of marriage". Instead, you chose "degrading". While "evolving" (outside of biology) typically involves the connotation of improving and "altering" has a more neutral connotation, the "degrading" of something has the connotation (perhaps denotation) to that thing being broken down, put into disrepair, made useless.

If gays are allowed to marry, marriage will still be joining of two committed, independent adults into a single family. There will be no degradation. It is bigotry to indicate that there will be.