[QUOTE]And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.[/QUOTE]:mike:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403496]Maybe you are unaware of how serious this problem is, perhaps because it is not politically correct to talk openly about it. [URL="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in"]This article[/URL] is just one of many that may help you understand how serious this is. This is an issue that affects hundreds of millions of people, while yours affects a vanishingly small portion of the population, who are usually either making a personal choice or are suffering mental illness.[/QUOTE]
Your linked article concerns single parents. But we're talking about marriage which is intended as a commitment for life and, in cases where the partners also want to be parents, a stable two-parent household for the children. This is more likely to succeed than an opposite sex marriage in which one of the partners is lesbian or gay and has only married an opposite sex partner because they felt pressured by society to do so. One good way of reducing the number of single parents is to avoid the latter situation.

The "vanishingly small portion of the population" is about 0.5 % if we are talking about people who fall somewhere in between the biological definitions of male and female. They are not making a personal choice, and they are not suffering mental illness. You need to educate yourself here.

[QUOTE]So my answer is in return to ask you some pointed rhetorical questions that only you can answer. Are you so absorbed in getting "rights" for people in situations you view similar to your own, that you can't see children don't need gender-confusion added to the mix? Are you ignoring the [B]hundreds of millions[/B] of individuals who have [I][B]no political voice[/B][/I], and are drowning, because those with political voice are passing laws which make marriage all about themselves? What are you doing to change that? Are your efforts [B]in scale[/B], or do you focus on problems that are out of scale?[/QUOTE]
Children are not incapable of understanding that some people are transgender, intersex, or gender-fluid. And there is no substance to your assertion that they are "drowning". Two adults can make excellent parents for a child regardless of their gender characteristics.

Xyzzy,

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these[B] little ones [/B]to stumble."

-----------------

Brian-E,

Originally you said (emphasis added by me).

[QUOTE]By "intersex", I mean people who [I]identify[/I] themselves neither as male nor female.[/QUOTE]

Later, you said (emphasis added by me again).

[QUOTE]The "vanishingly small portion of the population" is about 0.5 % if we are talking about people who fall somewhere in between the [I]biological definitions[/I] of male and female.[/QUOTE]

I hope you can see where my confusion came from. There are some who do not identify as one or the other, for no biological reason. And there are those who have no trouble identifying as one or the other, even though their biology isn't clear. You can't fault me for mentioning the first group (which is sizable among the set of all people who identify themselves as neither male nor female).

Those not born with either the standard XX or XY chromosome pairs make up about 0.06% (according to this [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex"]wikipedia article[/URL]). Even if we increase this figure by a factor of 10 to account for other un-measured possibilities (such as the wrong hormones in the womb, genetic problems other than in the chromosome pairs, etc...), yes this is a vanishly small portion of the population. In comparison, less than half the children in the United States are being raised in a traditional two-parent home. That is over 50% of the population. The two problems are not nearly on the same scale. And yes, I believe it is right to worry that trying to solve one problem in the wrong way could aggravate the much bigger problem.

Yes, I moved the goalposts when I mentioned the biological definitions of male and female.

There are too many fuzzy definitions and unknown quantities to talk meaningfully about rate of occurrence anyway. The Intersex Society if North America estimates a total of one person in 100 whose body deviates from standard male or standard female in [URL="http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency"]this article[/URL].

I should not really have gone into this question of rate of occurrence anyway because I don't even consider it relevant. Sorry for doing that. The argument against allowing intersex people to get married on the grounds that they are few in number is offensive. No-one should be denied quality of life just because they are in a tiny minority group. You would agree with that, I am sure, but you are covering yourself by suggesting that intersex people either (1) are not fit to be parents themselves, or (2) would somehow encourage unstable households with children simply by themselves being allowed to marry. Is it (1) or (2), by the way, in the case of intersex people?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;403867]Yes, I moved the goalposts when I mentioned the biological definitions of male and female.[/quote]Thank you for your apology.

[quote]There are too many fuzzy definitions and unknown quantities to talk meaningfully about rate of occurrence anyway. The Intersex Society if North America estimates a total of one person in 100 whose body deviates from standard male or standard female in [URL="http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency"]this article[/URL].[/quote]First, you are moving goalposts again. We were talking about people who do not identify as one or the other; not about minor body differences. These are two completely different issues.

Second, I don't think one could say that this society is unbiased.

[quote]I should not really have gone into this question of rate of occurrence anyway because I don't even consider it relevant. Sorry for doing that.[/quote]Apology again accepted.

[quote]The argument against allowing intersex people to get married on the grounds that they are few in number is offensive.[/quote]Good thing I [B]didn't[/B] make that argument. Too bad you missed what I really did say.

[quote]No-one should be denied quality of life just because they are in a tiny minority group. You would agree with that, I am sure,[/quote]Yup, agreed. However, I would argue that the social function of marriage is not primarily about improving "quality of life".

[quote]... but you are covering yourself by suggesting that intersex people either (1) are not fit to be parents themselves, or (2) would somehow encourage unstable households with children simply by themselves being allowed to marry. Is it (1) or (2), by the way, in the case of intersex people?[/QUOTE]To answer this question, we really do have to get to the heart of what "intersex" means. Does it mean (1) those suffering the mental illness of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder"]gender identity disorder[/URL], (2) those suffering some form of biological dysfunction with respect to sex, (3) anyone at all who does not identify as either male or female, or (4) something else?

To begin to answer your question let me clarify a few things. First, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that "intersex people" are not fit to be parents. Many of them [B]already marry[/B], have children, and make great parents.

What I have said is that the [B]main[/B] (but not sole) social function of marriage is to provide a setting for bringing up children in a stable two-parent home, if possible with the children's biological fathers and mothers raising them. My point about "vanishingly small" was only that we shouldn't be so focused on problems which range from the non-existent to the extremely unlikely, in order to justify major changes to an institution which will impact hundreds of milions of children (who are already suffering the ill effects of previous changes in the law), when[B] we can solve the problem in other ways[/B], and we really should be [B]focused on the main problem[/B].

I'm of the personal opinion that a gay marriage is more likely better for children because child rearing responsibilities have a better chance of being shared more evenly. Furthermore, the current gay marriages occurring as laws transition are often deeper commitments because these are people who stayed together throughout legal and social disadvantages and even though they couldn't get married previously.

The real problem is when we stopped surrendering women's assets to the husband when they got married. Then we gave them the vote so then there was no way to change things back. Then we let them enter the workplace. Oh, we tried to keep them out and still pay them less but it gets hard to keep them down on the farmhouse. Then because families could have two bread winners, the economy adjusted to basically require two breadwinners; so childcare went by the wayside for latchkey children, quality, etc. Of course we kept black men out of the household because impoverished families received more aid if daddy wasn't around, but hey, that wasn't intended to screw up marriage and child rearing, but heck, it's all for the children right?

Hoping to find mutual understanding through discourse
 

Zeta-Flux: I'd like to explore your views more thoroughly via a series of closely targeted questions. In particular, I would very much like to see whether we could find a compromise position with which both you and I could agree. It may be that Nick and Brian could also agree with it but that remains to be seen. In general I'll give my answer to the question in the same posting though behind spoiler tags so that you may choose whether or not to let that influence your response.

To set the starting position, I think I'm on safe ground in believing that you find homosexual marriage unacceptable because of your perception that it is bad for children within society in general. I also believe that you have no personal animosity to homosexual people [i]per se[/i]. If either of those conditions are wrong, please enlighten me and we'll take it from your espoused position.

For my part, I have no wish to be diverted by issues of incest or poly{gam,andr,gyn}y so let us please restrict the domain of discourse to [B]couples[/B] who have [B]no significant genetic or familial relationship[/B] to each other.

First question: should same-sex couples be allowed to live together? Note that I say nothing about the presence or absence of any legal agreement between the couple, nor whether they have any kind of a sexual relationship with each other, only that they share a household to some noticeable extent.

[spoiler]In my view, they should be so allowed.[/spoiler]

Paul

P.S. Although others are welcome to give their own answers to my questions, thereby making their views known to me also, I think it very much more likely to reach a mutual understanding if we stick strictly to the subject of each question in turn.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403889]To answer this question, we really do have to get to the heart of what "intersex" means. Does it mean (1) those suffering the mental illness of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder"]gender identity disorder[/URL], (2) those suffering some form of biological dysfunction with respect to sex, (3) anyone at all who does not identify as either male or female, or (4) something else?[/QUOTE]
Number (3) covers it: a person is intersex if they do not identify as either male or female.

[QUOTE]To begin to answer your question let me clarify a few things. First, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that "intersex people" are not fit to be parents. Many of them [B]already marry[/B], have children, and make great parents.[/QUOTE]I merely asked you whether you meant that intersex people are not fit to be parents or whether they would somehow encourage unstable households with children simply by themselves being allowed to marry. Nothing in your postings up to that point had made it clear which of the two it was. (I couldn't think of anything else which you could possibly mean.)

[QUOTE]What I have said is that the [B]main[/B] (but not sole) social function of marriage is to provide a setting for bringing up children in a stable two-parent home, if possible with the children's biological fathers and mothers raising them.[/QUOTE]Does that exclude intersex people as parents? I'm [U]still[/U] not clear what your position is.

[QUOTE]My point about "vanishingly small" was only that we shouldn't be so focused on problems which range from the non-existent to the extremely unlikely, in order to justify major changes to an institution which will impact hundreds of milions of children (who are already suffering the ill effects of previous changes in the law), when[B] we can solve the problem in other ways[/B], and we really should be [B]focused on the main problem[/B].[/QUOTE]The "main problem", as far as I can tell from what you have written, is unstable homes for children. Have you considered that couples who do not fit a clear one-woman-and-one-man model are more likely to be stable in (comparison with general couples because they will have had no social pressure to become a couple? (This is only_human's point above.) Why artificially exclude these couples?

EDIT: The above is cross-posted with Paul's posting.

only human,

[QUOTE]I'm of the personal opinion that a gay marriage is more likely better for children because child rearing responsibilities have a better chance of being shared more evenly. Furthermore, the current gay marriages occurring as laws transition are often deeper commitments because these are people who stayed together throughout legal and social disadvantages and even though they couldn't get married previously.[/QUOTE]These are logical thoughts. They seem reasonable to me

However, as strange as it may seem, they are also wrong. In places where long-term data is available, which is necessary to compare divorce rates, the data tells us that same-sex couples divorce more often. The data also suggests that children do better having gender roles from both genders, and that they fair better with their biological parents in particular.

The [i]reasons[/i] for this data are not entirely clear. In my personal opinion, I think that having biological connections creates strong bonds between a child and its parents. But my personal opinion on the matter may be just as wrong as yours, so I await more data.

---------------

Brian-E,

[QUOTE]The "main problem", as far as I can tell from what you have written, is unstable homes for children.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I [I]think[/I] I see why you are not grasping my argument. You seem to be making a categorical error.

Let me give another related example, and then come back to the issue at hand. If you asked me "Do you need love to have a marriage?" my answer would be complicated. For individuals, yes, love is an essential ingredient to a happy and lasting marriage. It should grow, through mutual respect and devotion, to one another. But when we start talking about the social institution, the answer changes. Some societies merely require the respective parties to sign an agreement. In the U.S., I doubt that a magistrate could prevent a couple from marrying, if the couple said they [B]don't[/B] love each other but they want to be married anyway and are committed to it. Love isn't a legal requirement. There is no test for the amount of love the couple possesses. So, when passing from one category (individuals) to another category (societal laws), the answer to a very basic question changes.

Similarly, while I am personally opposed to unstable homes and try to keep my own home stable, when we pass to the category of societal laws I am not necessarily in favor of [i]outlawing instability[/i]. I favor laws which promote stability, rather than punishing instability. I also take a pragmatic approach-- if a law may promote stability among one (small) group, but also promotes instability among the population as a whole, I think we can do better than that.

--------------------------

xilman,

[QUOTE] I'd like to explore your views more thoroughly via a series of closely targeted questions.[/QUOTE]Sounds good to me.

[QUOTE]First question: should same-sex couples be allowed to live together? Note that I say nothing about the presence or absence of any legal agreement between the couple, nor whether they have any kind of a sexual relationship with each other, only that they share a household to some noticeable extent.[/QUOTE]I'm being honest when I say that I don't understand the question. By "allowed" do you mean "by the government" or "looked on as positive by society" or "allowed if I had godlike power" or "allowed if I was their church leader" or something else?

Regardless, I believe my answer would be in most cases, yes.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403954]However, as strange as it may seem, they are also wrong. In places where long-term data is available, which is necessary to compare divorce rates, the data tells us that same-sex couples divorce more often. The data also suggests that children do better having gender roles from both genders, and that they fair better with their biological parents in particular.[/QUOTE]

I would LOVE to have references to the datasets you are claiming exist.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403954]
I'm being honest when I say that I don't understand the question. By "allowed" do you mean "by the government" or "looked on as positive by society" or "allowed if I had godlike power" or "allowed if I was their church leader" or something else?

Regardless, I believe my answer would be in most cases, yes.[/QUOTE]Fair enough. I should have been more explicit. The domain of discourse is that of legality, so allowed by law set by government in your jurisdiction (at an appropriate level between local and national) and enforced by the judiciary. Religious views vary so widely that almost anything goes, or doesn't go, it seems to me. Your religious views almost certainly differ from mine and from those of, say, orthodox Jews, Scientologists, Moslems and Wiccans.

I should also have been more explicit in that I wish to consider only relationships, legal and social, between adults as defined by the local jurisdiction. For the purposes of discussion it doesn't really matter whether the participants have to be at least 14, 16, 18, 21 or any other arbitrary age decided upon. All I wish to do is avoid getting sidetracked into discussions of p{a,}edophila and the like.


Ok, so I'll take it that you assent, absent other considerations such as illegal coercion by one party. I also concur with that proviso. Please feel free to clarify further if necessary.

Next question: should co-habiting couples of the same sex as described previously be allowed to enter a legally binding agreement on their mutual obligations, such as being "jointly and severably" being responsible for paying rent, service charges, structural maintenance and so forth? Please assume that the proposed agreement has been examined by a legally competent third party and accepted as legal within the jurisiction concerned, if any such agreement at all is legal in your view. The phrase "jointly and severally" is a technical term in UK law which I hope you understand in the US. It basically means that either or both can be pursued in law for alleged breeches of an agreement.

My answer: [spoiler] Yes they should be allowed[/spoiler]