Can't Fool Me...
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;129974][I][Moderator note: Split off from the [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9456"]New U.S. President[/URL] thread.][/I]
<snip penIs>
[/QUOTE]
THERE AIN'T NO SANITY CLAUSE

Chico

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271710]Nobody is banned from marrying. Rather, same gender couples cannot legally call their partnership a marriage. Such people never wanted a traditional marriage, they just wanted to call a different type of relationship a marriage. Anyone who finds a partner of the opposite sex can still be married.

Similarly, specific groups are not banned from forming civil unions. Everyone is banned from it.

The relevant legal question is whether this is meant to target certain groups who are the most affected, or whether the proposal was sincerely an attempt to protect the institution of marriage and the family. Rest assured that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on that question (probably in about 2 years).[/QUOTE]As long as straight/heterosexual people can enter into a union called marriage with a person whom they love and is a consenting adult, it's discrimination not to allow gay people to do the same with a member of the same gender. The US, nor any other place on Earth, shouldn't be allowed to codify any kind of discrimination like this into law.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271710]Nobody is banned from marrying. Rather, same gender couples cannot legally call their partnership a marriage. Such people never wanted a traditional marriage, they just wanted to call a different type of relationship a marriage. Anyone who finds a partner of the opposite sex can still be married.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is banned from marrying. Rather, couples of different races cannot legally call their partnership a marriage. Such people never wanted a traditional marriage, they just wanted to call a different type of relationship a marriage. Anyone who finds a partner of the same race can still be married.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;271817]Nobody is banned from marrying. Rather, couples of different races cannot legally call their partnership a marriage. Such people never wanted a traditional marriage, they just wanted to call a different type of relationship a marriage. Anyone who finds a partner of the same race can still be married.[/QUOTE]Except that this only holds up under a revisionist view of marriage and history.

Interracial marriages have always, throughout human history, been considered marriages. Antimiscegenation has historically been about who is allowed to marry, and not what marriage is. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is both about who is allowed to marry *and* what marriage is.

I personally think that answer suffices. But, for the sake of argument, let us ignore that context. The question your post then raises is at what level discrimination is rational. Instead of interracial marriages, we could "fill-in-the-blank" (as I did previously) with other concepts, such as open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial marriages. In my opinion, the only way to answer the question of what it is rational to discriminate against is ask "What purpose does marriage serve to society?" Or more fundamentally, "What is marriage?" Clearly, some of those listed options (like incest) run counter to a society which values certain basic human rights. For others, the answer may depend on what society wants out of marriage.

I would argue that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the historical societal purpose of marriage, and the stated purpose given in North Carolina, whereas interracial marriage does not. Furthermore, I would argue that banning interracial marriage in fact runs strictly counter to said purposes. In other words, if you want your parallel of my post to really be a parallel, you need to show how I am misinterpreting the purpose of marriage in North Carolina so that either (1) miscegenation does meet their purpose or (2) miscegenation doesn't meet their purpose, and banning gay marriage in some similar way also doesn't meet that purpose.

Most of this is spelled out more forcefully in the article I linked to earlier: [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155"]What is Marriage?[/URL]

You can write such drivel as "What is marriage", but you might want to think about the fact that Woodrow Wilson, once president of Princeton, was a violent racist that set the cause of racial equality back about 50 years when he became president, by firing the white house cook simply for being black.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that allowing a "gay marriage" changes marriage fundamentally, but you language (or rather, lack of language using any other word for the phenomenon) indicates just how similar these partnerships are to the ones between men and women. As to the state interest, it should be limited to providing good homes for children -- and many gay couples want precisely the chance to raise children -- and there is no such thing as making someone gay by presenting that as an acceptable alternative way of being.

You can also argue about historical meaning until you are blue in the face, but consider what happens when an airframe manufacturer marries the wings to the fuselage of an airplane, or a steam locomotive is married to the tender, or the two halves of something big are married together. Marriage means a union of two things, intended to be permanent, with consequences for not becoming a union.

Paul, in that last sentence replace "miscegenation" with "antimiscegenation laws".

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271820]Most of this is spelled out more forcefully in the article I linked to earlier: [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155"]What is Marriage?[/URL][/QUOTE]

Lengthy rebuttal [url=http://www.amptoons.com/blog/category/george-what-is-marriage/page/2/]here[/url].

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271820]I would argue that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the historical societal purpose of marriage, and the stated purpose given in North Carolina, whereas interracial marriage does not.[/QUOTE]Okey-doke, I'm going to give in to your position totally and make another proposal. That ok with you?

I propose that nothing be changed in the institution of marriage in any way whatsoever. Only couples of opposite sex may marry and all the rights, restrictions and obligations (such as inheritance, residence, financial, and so on) of married people to each other and to and from society remain exactly the same as now. Is that acceptable to you?

That is the first half of the proposal. The other half is that couples of the same sex may enter into a state which, purely for the sake of needing a word to summarize it, I will call [i]marklar[/i]. The institution of marklar will have enshrined rights, restrictions and obligations ((such as inheritance, residence, financial, and so on) which are equivalent in law in every respect that married couples have to each other and to and from society.

Given that I've already conceded your every expressed requirement for marriage and, I suspect, many others that you have not yet expressed, would you support this compromise proposal? If not, why would you not allow same-sex couples to marklar each other?


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;271846]Okey-doke, I'm going to give in to your position totally and make another proposal. That ok with you?[/quote]Sure.

[quote]I propose that nothing be changed in the institution of marriage in any way whatsoever. Only couples of opposite sex may marry and all the rights, restrictions and obligations (such as inheritance, residence, financial, and so on) of married people to each other and to and from society remain exactly the same as now. Is that acceptable to you?[/quote]Not really. I'm not one to reject all change. I'm glad, for example, that in some countries a wife can now inherit her husbands estate when previously that was not the case. I would also favor more stringent restrictions/penalties on divorce, and make it easier for a husband who has been faithful to get at least partial custody after a divorce.

[quote]That is the first half of the proposal. The other half is that couples of the same sex may enter into a state which, purely for the sake of needing a word to summarize it, I will call [i]marklar[/i]. The institution of marklar will have enshrined rights, restrictions and obligations ((such as inheritance, residence, financial, and so on) which are equivalent in law in every respect that married couples have to each other and to and from society.

Given that I've already conceded your every expressed requirement for marriage and, I suspect, many others that you have not yet expressed, would you support this compromise proposal? If not, why would you not allow same-sex couples to marklar each other?[/QUOTE]Why do same sex couples get this institution and not best friends? In other words, what is the societal purpose of this institution? Is it simply to legitimize homosexual relations?

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;271840]Lengthy rebuttal [url=http://www.amptoons.com/blog/category/george-what-is-marriage/page/2/]here[/url].[/QUOTE]

Thank you for posting that link. If you would like me to respond to them, I'm happy to do so. I've read the first couple, and will read the rest if you think they adequately address George's paper.

Article I: I like the author's colloquial way of writing, how he admits to his own weaknesses and the strengths of the paper he is attempting to refute. And I like his bravado in attempting to run with the big dogs.

Article II: I appreciate the authors attempt to classify the philosophical background that George (and his coauthors) are coming from; and think that he probably gets it right that George is a natural law philosopher (at least in this paper). However, I also see a strong weakness in this response-- he never quotes from the paper to back up his assertions. When he says

[quote]He thinks we can use reason to discover morality (and in fact, his article’s argument is intended to be purely secular, with no appeal to religion), but the conclusions derived from reason have to match truth as revealed in the Gospels and interpreted by the Church, or they are flawed. That shapes his approach to “What is marriage?” because he knows the answer before he begins; his job is to develop a rational basis for defining something that has already been eternally defined in a higher realm.[/quote]

he gives no evidence for this claim. Further, when he recommends that when defining marriage we should "look at what people in this world call marriage, what led them to marry, and what they hope to achieve by marrying. Let’s find the essential, common features, and use them to define what marriage is." I think he missed a great deal of what George and others did. They examined all sorts of marriage laws, and their stated purposes.

He claims that George builds his view from a very few basic ideas, but I don't see him ever listing those ideas or really addressing any deficiencies (just claiming they exist).

Article III: I started reading it, but had to stop immediately. He draws some Venn diagrams to try and make his point, but they are faulty. The question is whether one can hold both viewpoints and have a coherent model. As stated, the two viewpoints are in opposition to one another. One could modify them and try to make them compatible, and George et. al. address such modifications later in their paper, but it is clearly NOT the case that those who favor same-sex marriage can view marriage as limited to a conjugal relationship between a man and a woman.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271820]Except that this only holds up under a revisionist view of marriage and history.

Interracial marriages have always, throughout human history, been considered marriages. Antimiscegenation has historically been about who is allowed to marry, and not what marriage is. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is both about who is allowed to marry *and* what marriage is.

I personally think that answer suffices. But, for the sake of argument, let us ignore that context. The question your post then raises is at what level discrimination is rational. Instead of interracial marriages, we could "fill-in-the-blank" (as I did previously) with other concepts, such as open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial marriages. In my opinion, the only way to answer the question of what it is rational to discriminate against is ask "What purpose does marriage serve to society?" Or more fundamentally, "What is marriage?" Clearly, some of those listed options (like incest) run counter to a society which values certain basic human rights. For others, the answer may depend on what society wants out of marriage.

I would argue that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the historical societal purpose of marriage, and the stated purpose given in North Carolina, whereas interracial marriage does not. Furthermore, I would argue that banning interracial marriage in fact runs strictly counter to said purposes. In other words, if you want your parallel of my post to really be a parallel, you need to show how I am misinterpreting the purpose of marriage in North Carolina so that either (1) miscegenation does meet their purpose or (2) miscegenation doesn't meet their purpose, and banning gay marriage in some similar way also doesn't meet that purpose.

Most of this is spelled out more forcefully in the article I linked to earlier: [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155"]What is Marriage?[/URL][/QUOTE]Why does it have to "mean anything to society" as long as it doesn't intentionally create the downfall of society in a real way with real harm among non-related consentual adults further than someone just doesn't like it because their beliefs say it's immoral? I think your limiting the idea of marriage to what one place calls it is insufficient. Marriage may have been at one time solely about raising children or family power solidification and safety, but in much more recent times it has come to be about love and happiness which is a much more happy way for it to operate. The "old way" it led to more instances of people marrying because they felt like they had to or were forced to by their families for some biased reason.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271874]Why do same sex couples get this institution and not best friends? In other words, what is the societal purpose of this institution? Is it simply to legitimize homosexual relations?[/QUOTE]Your use of the term "legitimize" and its apparent connotation makes it sound as if you are one of those people who disregard gay relationships as a matter of course. They don't need "legitimizing". They need equal treatment under the law with all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities" because, otherwise, it's not fair. Complete equality and fairness should be one of the main goals of a democracy.

Zeta-Flux:
There's another of those words describing the relationship: conjugal. The roots of the word mean very much together, and that is the type of relationship we are discussing here.
The language won't even let you describe what goes on between 2 gay men as anything other than the same thing that goes on between a man and a woman.

Let me steal a few words, from this paper "What is marriage" which is designed to get it's primary author a PhD by giving second authorship to a thesis advisor:
"The whole point of antimiscegenation laws in the United States was to prevent the genuine possibility of inter‐
racial marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to maintain the gravely unjust system of white supremacy.9"
Let's re-write that slightly, since the context of the article is why marriage must be only between a man and a woman....
"The whole point of "preservation of marriage" laws in the United States is to prevent the genuine possibility of homosexual marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to maintain the gravely unjust system of anti-gay discrimination."

Gay marriage walks like a duck, talks like a duck, even when ZetaFlux talks about it...it IS a duck...

Here we go, another pearl from "what is marriage", a logical non-sequitur:

More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation fails because it relies on the false assumption that any distinction is unjust discrimination.
[Christenson: This is a straw man...noone seriously proposes to recognize the types of unions being discussed below, because either they are non-permanent or very likely to be based on a rather large power imbalance that removes choice from one partner, and marriage is about intentional permanence and sustainability of the relationship]
But suppose that the legal incidents of marriage were made available to same‐sex as well as opposite‐sex couples. We would still, by the revisionists’ logic, be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions.
[Christenson: open and polyamorous unions already get recognized as regular marriages..who is this bozo kidding?:poop:]

I'd better stop here....before the logic bomb in the paper explodes completely....:deadhorse:

One more, before I start talking to myself....
Our wonderful author thinks that the essence of union is "the generative act", the one that possibly causes reproduction....so if I'm a sperm donor, and someone substitutes that sperm for what comes from her infertile husband, I must be married to that woman...

Fundamentally, given that the "generative act" between a man and a woman might or might not produce a child, might or might not involve actual physical contact, (think of Dear Abby columns about boyfriends getting GFs pregnant without coitus) I don't think it's the generative act itself that makes for a union...it's the sex, pure and simple. You wouldn't call my parents in less of a marriage because they weren't doing the final, generative part of sex...

I think, as in Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy, I need to start a philosopher's strike.....

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;271879]Your use of the term "legitimize" and its apparent connotation makes it sound as if you are one of those people who disregard gay relationships as a matter of course. They don't need "legitimizing". They need equal treatment under the law with all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities" because, otherwise, it's not fair. Complete equality and fairness should be one of the main goals of a democracy.[/QUOTE]You misunderstand my point. Here is some of the context.

Paul granted, for the sake of argument (perhaps in an effort to understand my position better, or to have me flesh it out), my hypothesis that allowing gay marriages would change the societal reasons for the institution of marriage. He then asked whether I would object to a completely separate institution which allowed for same-sex unions to be formalized by law. The point being, I think, that if I really only cared about marriage then I wouldn't be opposed to this separate institution on those grounds.

My question about legitimization was aimed at bringing out the reasoning for the separate institution. Depending on the reasons Paul would give for his proposed institution, then it might be the case that we could/should follow those same reasons to legally legitimize polygamy, or a host of other pairings. And in that case, we are led to a direct confrontation to the position he granted for the sake of argument. (Some of this comes back to your earlier question about why society cares about these things.)

By the way, I'm not trying to ignore you if I don't respond to your posts. It's just that I can't hold four conversations at once without there arising a lot of confusion. As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, I'll stick with that one thread in the tapestry.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271921]You misunderstand my point. Here is some of the context.[/QUOTE]
The context is clear, Zeta-Flux, and I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you. Jwb52z' suggestion, that what you write indicates a dismissal of the relevance and importance of same sex lifetime pair bonding, still stands. This lack of respect on your part for these relationships shows itself both in phrases like "best friends" which you keep using, and also in your entire argument that only opposite sex marriages serve the purpose of marriage which society requires.

[QUOTE]As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, I'll stick with that one thread in the tapestry.[/QUOTE]Understandable. You can't fight on all fronts at once. But I think everyone here is being reasonable and sincere.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271921]As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, [/QUOTE]I've been visiting family all weekend and arrived back home only 20 minutes ago. I'm too tired to post anything substantive now but will return to the subject tomorrow, all being well.

Paul

[QUOTE=Brian-E;271943]The context is clear, Zeta-Flux, and I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you. Jwb52z' suggestion, that what you write indicates a dismissal of the relevance and importance of same sex lifetime pair bonding, still stands. This lack of respect on your part for these relationships shows itself both in phrases like "best friends" which you keep using, and also in your entire argument that only opposite sex marriages serve the purpose of marriage which society requires.[/quote]That's the danger of message boards I guess. People will misunderstand you and then disbelieve you when you clarify.

But frankly, I continue to think your comments can be turned right back on your own head. If I seem dismissive it might be because I think you are dismissive of lifestyle choices (like polygamy) that you disagree with, and the lack of respect on your part shows itself when you claim your type of relationship is legitimate while the polygamist's is not.

So, what you see as lack of respect I see as a call for you to clarify the differences. [b]WHY[/b] in your view is a "lifetime same sex pair bonding" any better than polygamy, or a lifetime friendship involving the mutual caring of two people, or a multi-person lifetime friendship, or such an arrangement that may be temporary? In my opinion you have yet to articulate why we should privilege "lifetime same sex pair bonding" above any of these alternatives.

Note: I have explained this before. I use phrases like "best friends" because I am unconvinced that you have a rational basis for privileging your preferred relationship over and above best friendship. I use it as a foil to your position. You have claimed that gay marriage should enjoy legal protections above other alternate forms of marriage such as polygamy only because it has the support of the populace, whereas polygamy does not. So I will continue to point out these types of discrepencies for people who, unlike you, think that this is a civil rights issue that is independent of popular support. If your relationship *deserves* the respect of law, so do two people who have no desires for sexual relations but want to care for each other and co-own their house, or three such people, or three such people who do want sexual relations, etc....

[quote]Understandable. You can't fight on all fronts at once. But I think everyone here is being reasonable and sincere.[/QUOTE]First, I didn't accuse anyone of not having those qualities--I only said that for certain Paul has them. Nor did I even mean to imply such a thing. I apologize to Jwb52z if he thought that. I think his posts are reasonable and sincere.

Perhaps I wasn't *REASONABLE*...but having read about half of the paper on "What is marriage", I've already found basic logic problems and fallacious application of the data. RD Silverman's english teachers would never have let him or me put such an invitation to ridicule in print, let alone given it a decent grade. I cannot believe a reasonably critical reviewer would not have found and flagged those problems before publication.

The conclusion that the paper, its authors, and its publisher aren't truly interested in putting forth or finding the truth (especially coming from a university with the slogan "veritas") is inescapable.

If marriage is supposed to be about doing the best possible for children, then this headline indicates just some of the real harm that rejection of gays is doing to our children:
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/a-quarter-of-gay-teens-are-homeless/242387/[/url]

Likewise, our wonderful author thinks that forcing the Catholic adoption agency not to place children in Massachusetts, the same wonderful state where the priestly child abuse scandal broke, is an abridgement of freedom of religion, as is a school banning words that will obviously threaten its gay (and simply wondering) students.

With such logic, I can prove anything I might like, including that all people with a "Z" in their "handle" should be banned immediately. It's in the studies that these type of people harm children, after all....

But I had better be very, very careful crossing the street when I do such logic, because I might actually think I was god...but reality doesn't care, and if there is a god, then there's a hot place awaiting me when I get run over.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271991]So, what you see as lack of respect I see as a call for you to clarify the differences. [B]WHY[/B] in your view is a "lifetime same sex pair bonding" any better than polygamy, or a lifetime friendship involving the mutual caring of two people, or a multi-person lifetime friendship, or such an arrangement that may be temporary? In my opinion you have yet to articulate why we should privilege "lifetime same sex pair bonding" above any of these alternatives.[/QUOTE]
I have consistently avoided comparing polygamy or other multi-person setups with lifetime same sex pair bonding, much less said that one is any better than the other. I have suggested that polygamy, where it is legal, may be based on a desire by one individual to control multiple others, and I stated that in the context of it being completely different from marriage as we know it. Most recently I have expressly stated that I reserve judgment on whether polygamy is good for the few areas in the world where it is officially sanctioned, being an outsider with no knowledge of those societies. As far as the Western world is concerned, I have pointed out on several occasions that there is no evidence, as far as I can see, for any natural human need to bond for a lifetime with more than one other person, and for that reason I see no reason to implement it in law. Same sex couples, on the other hand, have been forming and thriving everywhere despite their lack of legal recognition. That is the difference.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;271998]As far as the Western world is concerned, I have pointed out on several occasions that there is no evidence, as far as I can see, for any natural human need to bond for a lifetime with more than one other person, and for that reason I see no reason to implement it in law. Same sex couples, on the other hand, have been forming and thriving everywhere despite their lack of legal recognition. That is the difference.[/QUOTE]

I have the perhaps fallacious impression that some people in this thread think Zeta-flux's continual return to "how is that different from polygamy" is a strawman, and that an adequate response is that there are no serious calls for polygamy in the Occident. Having recently started the TV series Big Love on CD, I am reminded that this is very real issue in Zeta-flux's neighborhood. I have no reason to doubt the factoid flashed at the end of an early show that 40-60,000 people in several states centered about Zeta-flux's home live in polygamous marriages. Although against LDS (aka Mormon) doctrine since 1890, many splinter groups that still support this practice make national (USA) news from time to time. There is apparently even a reality TV show featuring such a family.

Reflecting on these facts recently, I was struck by the realization that in looking for comparisons on the basis of "when was the last time marriage laws underwent controversial revision and how did that work out?", I fall with many in the category of thinking of laws in some regions restricting marriages between races, and that change worked out well. But anyone living in Zeta-flux's neighborhood is more likely to think about the ongoing polygamy controversy, and at least the politically correct attitude is that it was (and is) a bad idea.

So in particular, "Same sex couples, on the other hand, have been forming and thriving everywhere despite their lack of legal recognition. That is the difference." doesn't cut it as an argument, because multiple wife marriages have been forming and thriving despite their lack of legal recognition in Zeta-flux's neighborhood for as long as it has been settled by Occidentals.

wblipp:
Thanks for bringing that out in the open.

One of the major proponents of those many-wife marriages (Warren Jeffs) is now a convicted felon for a variety of activities that are a natural result of such "marriages".

What is strange about it is that somehow, there is no reasonable call to recognize such marriages. The ill effects are well-documented; even the early mormon church leaders were afraid to reveal this idea to their followers until they were in Utah.

Yes, this throws a new light on the obsession with polygamy in this thread. I had not considered the Mormon history before, living as I do on a continent where it a complete non-issue.

It is undoubtedly the case that being part of a religion is a natural human need. It also appears that religion is widely misused by individuals to gain power over others and/or to cause those others to follow practices which are not of themselves natural human behaviour. And I would suggest that the polygamous history of the Mormons, which William tells us survives significantly to the present day in and around Utah, might fall into this category.

I don't really go so far as to say that the concerns that some people have about marriage being extended to include set-ups with more than two people if same sex couples are covered by it, are a straw man. I do, however, think that we are talking about something fundamentally different when we consider polygamy. Basically, for whatever reason polygamy thrives, it is not the natural human need to bond with another person and create a family unit with that person and with or without children. Same sex marriage, on the other hand, is no different from opposite sex marriage in that respect.

[QUOTE=Christenson;271995]With such logic, I can prove anything I might like, including that all people with a "Z" in their "handle" should be banned immediately. It's in the studies that these type of people harm children, after all....[/QUOTE]As do those with the letter "C" in their name. Further, it has been well documented that sexual abuse of children has been a pastime of Christian priests world-wide for some substantial time.

Somehow, I don't think that either your quoted comment or my comments above are either relevant or helpful to the current discussion. Mine were made only to draw attention to this observation. I would hope that you also recognize that your comments are, at best, irrelevant and insensitive.

Paul

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271874][QUOTE=xilman;271846]Okey-doke, I'm going to give in to your position totally and make another proposal. That ok with you?[/quote]Not really. I'm not one to reject all change. I'm glad, for example, that in some countries a wife can now inherit her husbands estate when previously that was not the case. I would also favor more stringent restrictions/penalties on divorce, and make it easier for a husband who has been faithful to get at least partial custody after a divorce.[/quote]Fair enough. I also have my own set of concerns about the implementation details of marriage in the UK. I'm assuming here that your concerns are with respect to the US situation. You're probably aware that marriage in the UK is restricted to different sex couples as in most of the states of the US. Others reading this thread may not be.

For the sake of making progress with the main topic of the debate I'm willing either for both of us to put those concerns to one side and proceed from the status quo, or to assume that our concerns have been met in a mutually acceptable resolution. Your choice though, as you doubtless notice, it makes absolutely no difference to the direction of our principal discussion.
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271874]
Why do same sex couples get this institution and not best friends? In other words, what is the societal purpose of this institution? Is it simply to legitimize homosexual relations?[/QUOTE]The reason is really very simple indeed. The thread was set up to discuss the proposition "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"

Discussion of other relationships between two or more and at least one of which is human are beyond the scope of the title, interesting though they may be.

My reason for making my proposal was to try to better understand your position by posing a question for you to answer.


Paul

Toothache
 

[QUOTE=xilman;271975]I've been visiting family all weekend and arrived back home only 20 minutes ago. I'm too tired to post anything substantive now but will return to the subject tomorrow, all being well.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I have a similar tale to tell, but (just for a change) will
refrain from boring with you with it.

David

Brian-E,

[QUOTE]Yes, this throws a new light on the obsession with polygamy in this thread.[/QUOTE]I've always been puzzled by the following conundrum. If someone accuses me of being obsessed with something should I let the accusation stand or should I attempt to defend myself and thus look more obsessed? What do you think?

[QUOTE]It is undoubtedly the case that being part of a religion is a natural human need. It also appears that religion is widely misused by individuals to gain power over others and/or to cause those others to follow practices which are not of themselves natural human behaviour. And I would suggest that the polygamous history of the Mormons, which William tells us survives significantly to the present day in and around Utah, might fall into this category.[/QUOTE]While I don't disagree with your assessment of those religious leaders such as Warren Jeffs who prey on their followers, I would suggest that the polygamous history of my church and the polygamous history of these sects are not very similar.

[QUOTE]I have consistently avoided comparing polygamy or other multi-person setups with lifetime same sex pair bonding, much less said that one is any better than the other.[/QUOTE]I'm going to call you out on this. In the context of gay marriage, and in particular [b]legalization[/b] of said relationships, the only measure of legitimization or betterness is giving legal protections. Your position clearly relegates polygamists to the back of the bus.

[QUOTE]I have suggested that polygamy, where it is legal, may be based on a desire by one individual to control multiple others, and I stated that in the context of it being completely different from marriage as we know it.[/QUOTE]And people say the same things about homosexuality.

But this doesn't answer my question because the fact that [b]some[/b] people use an institution the wrong way doesn't mean everyone does. Or are you claiming that a large majority of polygamist enters the institution only to control others? If so (and I hope not), I think I'd be right in claiming such a position is bigoted, naive, and a symptom of polygaphobia.

Or are you saying that it would be fair of me to judge gay marriage by the public actions of a part of the homosexual community? Would it be fair of me to look at the annual gay pride parade in San Francisco and judge from that whether gay marriage is a good thing?

[QUOTE]Most recently I have expressly stated that I reserve judgment on whether polygamy is good for the few areas in the world where it is officially sanctioned, being an outsider with no knowledge of those societies.[/QUOTE]But that won't cut it. You are also an outsider to societies which allow slavery and antimiscegenation laws. But you know those are wrong. You are also an outsider to the US, but you have made up your mind about whether it is right for us to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

On the one hand, you think anti-gay marriage laws are like antimiscegenation laws, wholly led by bigotry, and yet you cannot see yourself in the mirror doing the same thing.

[QUOTE]As far as the Western world is concerned, I have pointed out on several occasions that there is no evidence, as far as I can see, for any natural human need to bond for a lifetime with more than one other person, and for that reason I see no reason to implement it in law.[/QUOTE]And the same thing has been said of homosexuality. And, frankly, there is more evidence for a natural human need to bond with more than one person than there is for pairing of only two same-sex people. I find your dismissal of their human need to be about on part with those who similarly dismiss your stated need.

[QUOTE]Same sex couples, on the other hand, have been forming and thriving everywhere despite their lack of legal recognition. That is the difference. [/QUOTE]Your view of history seems myopic. Polygamy has been a part of human culture for millenia. Same sex pairing of only two people is, for the most part, a recent phenomena. A majority of same-sex relations have been, and continue to be, plural.

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

William,

My history with polygamy does not really center around any of the fundamentalist groups in my area. I don't have contact with any of them (they are insular anyway), and I don't approve of disobeying the law of the land. And I also do believe that many of their leaders are depraved.

However, I do belong to a church which at one time embraced polygamy, and so I'm familiar with a large segment of historical people who struggled with it (given their earlier protestant backgrounds) but lived it and without any desire of control over their wives. And I don't judge those other parts of the world which embrace polygamy as supporting it out of an attempt to repress or control women. Or at least, I don't think that polygamy has to be practiced out of such desires.

Anyway, my issue has been the following. As you say, some people are comfortable with gay marriage because they are familiar with how slavery was a bad thing and introduced negative changes to the marriage culture in America. Those laws were created out of pure bigotry, defended out of pure bigotry, and it was good for them to be removed. Similarly, many people see the gay marriage issue as a civil rights issue. Laws against gay marriage are wrong as a matter of principle, [b]just as[/b] laws against interracial marriages are wrong as a matter of principle.

So when I see arguments against polygamy which mirror the arguments people gave against interracial marriage and are currently giving against gay marriage, it astounds me. Would it have mattered if there were only say 10 people who wanted to have interracial marriages? Would that have made it okay to discriminate in that manner? No, the law was simply wrong on the face of it. Would it have mattered if some of those seeking interracial marriages wanted them only for the purpose of dominating a woman of another race, or for the purpose of elevating one's class? Those issues are irrelevant to the legal question of whether it is a civil right to marry someone of one's own choosing.

So, for me, if I were to agree with the argument that gay marriage is also about one's civil right to marry someone of one's own choosing I would naturally be led to think that the polygamist, or frankly any group of people, should have a similar right. And so I want to understand how other people do not see this connection. Somehow, to them, they think gay marriage is not an entirely new beast but polygamy is. For them, when I say that gay marriage is a different institution and doesn't meet the stated social purpose of marriage, they claim that I don't give homosexual desires their proper respect. But then these same people claim polygamy is a different institution because it does meet one of the stated social purposes to marriage (of pairing off).

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe the following thought experiment will help you understand my position, and then you can help me see where the disconnect is happening. Suppose Henry and Sam are best friends, and met each other in college. Suppose that they decided to pool their resources, buy a house together, and support one another in sickness. Should it make any difference in the law whether or not Henry and Sam are of the opposite gender in whether they can inherit the house from the other? If Henry falls sick, does it matter if they are married when the nurse turns Sam away from visiting at the hospital? If Sam adopts a child, and then dies, should the judge only decide that Henry gets custody of the child if Henry and Sam were having sexual relations? What kind of relationship should an employer (or the government) require of Henry and Sam before it grants insurance benefits to the other? And in all of this, if their friend George joined them in these endeavors, should the answer change?

I see inheritance rights, visitation rights, and so forth not to be fundamentally tied to any sort of sexual expressions or desires. Rather, I see them as coming from the relative agencies agreeing to honor the commitment of the two people. Two (or more) people who care for one another should be able to visit in the hospital, regardless of whether they consider themselves married to each other or just best friends committed to the health of one another.

So now let's get to children. Should it make any difference in the eyes of the law whether or not Henry and Sam are having sexual relations relative to the question of their suitability in raising children? In other words, can a couple choose to be just as faithful to each other and their children, be just as good parents, without having any sexual desires for one another? It seems like Brian-E sees some fundamental difference here, and that somehow sexual acts do seal the couple together more than friendship does. But from my own experience in marriage (and I admit, I only have one data point) my desire to be faithful comes as a force of will and love that is somewhat independent of those desires. I have chosen to be faithful to her and my family. My feelings often complement those promises, but not always. So, are those feelings necessary? I don't think so.

So I guess maybe I see three categories of issues related to marriage laws.
(1) Issues surrounding the care of one another. (2) Issues surrounding the nurture and raising of children. (3) Issues surrounding the creation of children. It appears that every objection to giving marital protections to polygamists (or best friends) has focused not around (2) or (3), but (1). In particular, there seems to be the claim that polygamists don't care for one another, or friends cannot care for one another like those having sexual relations. I just don't buy that. (My issues with polygamy are more with (2) and (3).)

What do you think?

Paul,

I've now spent about 2 hours posting the above. I need to get a lot of work done, so it might be a while before I respond again.

[QUOTE]For the sake of making progress with the main topic of the debate I'm willing either for both of us to put those concerns to one side and proceed from the status quo, or to assume that our concerns have been met in a mutually acceptable resolution. Your choice though, as you doubtless notice, it makes absolutely no difference to the direction of our principal discussion.[/QUOTE]That's fine. I agree.

[QUOTE]The reason is really very simple indeed. The thread was set up to discuss the proposition "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"

Discussion of other relationships between two or more and at least one of which is human are beyond the scope of the title, interesting though they may be.

My reason for making my proposal was to try to better understand your position by posing a question for you to answer.
[/QUOTE]I hope the above has satisfied part of this desire to understand.

I don't see the point of a separate institution while also seeing many dangers to it. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an easier system for getting visitation and inheritance rights for ANY collection of people. With regards to children, I believe a child is most often best served by being raised by its biological parents. However as that is often not possible, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring insurance benefits from an employer for the primary caregiver of a jointly raised child. etc...

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272079]I hope the above has satisfied part of this desire to understand.[/quote]Correct.
[[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272079]
I don't see the point of a separate institution while also seeing many dangers to it. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of an easier system for getting visitation and inheritance rights for ANY collection of people. With regards to children, I believe a child is most often best served by being raised by its biological parents. However as that is often not possible, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring insurance benefits from an employer for the primary caregiver of a jointly raised child. etc...[/QUOTE]The point of the separate institution is so that those, such as you, who require that marriage be restricted to opposite-sex couples have their desires met completely.

The separate institution of marklar allows those same-sex couples who wish to have specific and non-discriminatory treatment under the law, etc, also to have their desires met. It is specifically to distinguish the two institutions that I gave the requirement that marklar be [i]only[/i] available to same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples would be forbidden by law to marklar, in precisely the same way as same-sex couples would be forbidden to marry.

It seems to me that my proposition meets all your previously raised conditions for legally recognized marriage.


Paul

Paul

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272078]
William,

My history with polygamy does not really center around any of the fundamentalist groups in my area. I don't have contact with any of them (they are insular anyway), and I don't approve of disobeying the law of the land. And I also do believe that many of their leaders are depraved.[/QUOTE]

I never imagined otherwise, and I apologize if my post left that impression. I think your question about whether arguments for homosexual marriage are equally valid for polygamous marriage is the strongest and most principled argument against homosexual marriage I have yet encountered, and deserves serious consideration. I posted because I felt it was not getting serious consideration in this thread. I mentioned the geographic connection because I thought that it would help people see the seriousness of the question by understanding there are places where it is a very real and current issue, and help them realize you ask these questions earnestly to see you physically located in those same regions, not to impugn you with allegations of such behaviors or leanings.

I don't have well stated answer for why homosexual marriage makes sense and polygamous marriage does not. I think it has to do with the kind of society I want to live in, and the collateral damage to other institutions caused by alternatives. I'll mostly lurk until I have something worthwhile to say.

William (and Paul),

I didn't see you connecting me with those groups, but I think other people did. Just wanted to clarify.

[QUOTE]I don't have well stated answer for why homosexual marriage makes sense and polygamous marriage does not. I think it has to do with the kind of society I want to live in, and the collateral damage to other institutions caused by alternatives. I'll mostly lurk until I have something worthwhile to say. [/QUOTE]And that is mostly what I have against gay marriage. In my opinion, from how I've seen the courts in states impose gay marriage, I think they will likely start imposing other forms of marriage. That's why I would be opposed to maklar (or, as I like to call it "pairriage"). Because it opens up the floodgates to other forms of marriage--or in some cases directly changes the meaning of marriage from being directly entangled with childbirth and child-raising, to being primarily about the couple.

Okay, off to racquetball.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

wow! we're actually getting somewhere...I certainly did not think you were a "jack mormon", just thought that your geography implied you could visit Colorado City tomorrow (or at least Bryce Canyon) and be home by evening if you dropped everything...doubtful they'd let you in, though...

Claim: There's still significant discrimination against the non-married, and it shows up in inheritance, insurance benefits, and emergencies where a care-giver must suddenly be appointed. This is the basis of the civil rights arguments.

Claim: Being "gay" in terms of attraction is not really a choice...a little evidence in that direction: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/sex-hormones-may-sway-womens-career-choices-224406369.html[/url]

Claim: Marriage should certainly be about creating an optimum environment for raising children. I was very disappointed that the studies cited in "what is marriage" about stable, committed, two-parent families were not large enough to look at what happened when that solemn commitment was between two parties of the same sex. That experiment is now being carried out in some quarters; I hope it gets studied carefully.

Worth noting: The two-parent only, nuclear family, with kids leaving the house when they come "of age" is a 20th-century, post WW-II phenomenon. Also worth noting: Although divorce rates are higher than ever, which is a nice, shocking statistic about how the world is falling apart, couples are also staying married longer, on average, than ever before...because the partnerships are ending in the death of one partner much less often!

Of interest to all: [url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-trial-tapes-public-judge-rules-214323376.html[/url] We get to see what went on at the California trial...should be interesting....

[QUOTE=xilman;272050]You're probably aware that marriage in the UK is restricted to different sex couples as in most of the states of the US. Others reading this thread may not be.[/QUOTE]I could have sworn that the UK made gay marriage legal when I saw George Michael on TV getting married in the UK. When did that change?

[QUOTE=xilman;272084]Correct.
[The point of the separate institution is so that those, such as you, who require that marriage be restricted to opposite-sex couples have their desires met completely.

The separate institution of marklar allows those same-sex couples who wish to have specific and non-discriminatory treatment under the law, etc, also to have their desires met. It is specifically to distinguish the two institutions that I gave the requirement that marklar be [i]only[/i] available to same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples would be forbidden by law to marklar, in precisely the same way as same-sex couples would be forbidden to marry.

It seems to me that my proposition meets all your previously raised conditions for legally recognized marriage.


Paul

Paul[/QUOTE]I'm sure you probably know that the whole idea of "separate but equal" never really worked very well in the US in anything.

[QUOTE]Of interest to all: [url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-marriag...214323376.html[/url] We get to see what went on at the California trial...should be interesting.... [/QUOTE]This decision will almost certainly be overturned, just as Walker's initial decision to broadcast the trial was overturned and other shenanigans he tried to pull. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/277691/order-unsealing-video-recording-anti-prop-8-trial-ed-whelan"]Some of the background on the decision.[/URL]

It's a funny thing...but I've talked to one or two wierdos (and the interviews I've seen with Goatse, another famous wierdo) and found most of them just as inflexible about what might be sex and what might be too icky to consider as anyone else.....

I'd be interested to see if substantive protective orders have actually been required for any witnesses in a "pro-family" expert role....I do know that so-called "anti-family" doctors leading significantly more private lives have been killed. Absent that kind of actual evidence, the background in the national review (I was hoping NRO meant national reconnaissance office!) seems like grandstanding. But it is excellent evidence of the fear involved, and fear never makes for good decisions.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272101]I could have sworn that the UK made gay marriage legal when I saw George Michael on TV getting married in the UK. When did that change?[/QUOTE]The arrangement is called a "civil union" and there are still significant differences between it and marriage. By coincidence, over the last few days the British news has been covering a political initiative to remove the remaining differences.

One difference is that a civil union may not be performed in a religious establishment. A church can, but need not, marry people. A proposal is that the same right, but not obligation, be extended to civil unions.

There are, of course, other differences.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;272119]The arrangement is called a "civil union" and there are still significant differences between it and marriage. By coincidence, over the last few days the British news has been covering a political initiative to remove the remaining differences.

One difference is that a civil union may not be performed in a religious establishment. A church can, but need not, marry people. A proposal is that the same right, but not obligation, be extended to civil unions.

There are, of course, other differences.

Paul[/QUOTE]Ok, somehow I guess I missed that they were only civil unions in the UK. Oh well...thanks for clarifying it for me.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272091]And that is mostly what I have against gay marriage. In my opinion, from how I've seen the courts in states impose gay marriage, I think they will likely start imposing other forms of marriage.[/QUOTE]OK, I think I understand your position now.

If I've got it right, you are not opposed to gay marriage [i]per se[/i] but are afraid of mission creep if it were to become widespread in the US. Is that a fair summary?

Paul

Tricky questions
 

[QUOTE=wblipp;272086]
I don't have well stated answer for why homosexual marriage makes sense and polygamous marriage does not. I think it has to do with the kind of society I want to live in, and the collateral damage to other institutions caused by alternatives. I'll mostly lurk until I have something worthwhile to say.[/QUOTE]

"Equality of the sexes" and "One man one vote" come to mind.

We all find euthanasia tricky.
My father's answer invariably ended with "you would have killed
Beethoven".

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;272249]"you would have killed
Beethoven".

David[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsp4VCbVvn4"]...and tell Tchaikovsk[/URL][U]y [/U][U]Toulouse[/U]

[QUOTE=xilman;272239]OK, I think I understand your position now.

If I've got it right, you are not opposed to gay marriage [i]per se[/i] but are afraid of mission creep if it were to become widespread in the US. Is that a fair summary?

Paul[/QUOTE]Am I the only one who doesn't know what "mission creep" means?

[QUOTE=xilman;272239]OK, I think I understand your position now.

If I've got it right, you are not opposed to gay marriage [i]per se[/i] but are afraid of mission creep if it were to become widespread in the US. Is that a fair summary?

Paul[/QUOTE]
It is very close.

I am opposed to gay marriage for basically three reasons.

(1) It might (and, IMO, probably will) open the door to other changes to marriage which I believe will be detrimental.

(2) If I grant the idea that we shouldn't force that segment of the population to choose between traditional marriage or no (legally recognized) marriage, and instead we grant them benefits according to their desires, then I personally believe we must do the same for all natural desires for any sort of long-term, freely chosen, association in which the people involved promise (under the same penalties--which currently seem to be almost nonexistent) to care for each other, share property, and pool resources (and/or take care of children). In other words, I think we would have to basically change legal marriage to a broadly understood "civil union" and broaden their scope drastically.

(3) I am undecided whether it will directly harm societies efforts in raising children. I am convinced that some people who want gay marriage make excellent parents. But I'm not entirely convinced that the institution as a whole does not bring more negatives than positives.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272320]Am I the only one who doesn't know what "mission creep" means?[/QUOTE]

Quite possibly...it's also known as "scope creep"....usually it refers to projects that suddenly have more and more requirements piled on them, usually preventing them from completing, and certainly making them late and overbudget.

A typical example of this kind of project (or disaster) is the FBI's virtual case file system. Instead of doing one thing well, it tried to do everything, and the project fell flat on its face. Database projects tend to be quite susceptible to this.

I think the proper word in this case is more like a "slippery moral slope", that is, ok, now we've let gays have marriage, we'll let the polygamists do it next....and, I expect Zeta-flux finds those polygamists quite morally repulsive, along with everyone else on this forum.

Zeta-flux's third point is well taken...those first few gay couples that raise children are going to be a well-motivated, self-chosen lot...will "average" gay couples do as well, especially in the commitment department?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272321]It is very close.

I am opposed to gay marriage for basically three reasons.

(1) It might (and, IMO, probably will) open the door to other changes to marriage which I believe will be detrimental.

(2) If I grant the idea that we shouldn't force that segment of the population to choose between traditional marriage or no (legally recognized) marriage, and instead we grant them benefits according to their desires, then I personally believe we must do the same for all natural desires for any sort of long-term, freely chosen, association in which the people involved promise (under the same penalties--which currently seem to be almost nonexistent) to care for each other, share property, and pool resources (and/or take care of children). In other words, I think we would have to basically change legal marriage to a broadly understood "civil union" and broaden their scope drastically.

(3) I am undecided whether it will directly harm societies efforts in raising children. I am convinced that some people who want gay marriage make excellent parents. But I'm not entirely convinced that the institution as a whole does not bring more negatives than positives.[/QUOTE]Worrying about what "might happen that's bad" isn't a reason to be allowed to be unjust to one group. As to your second point, you'd have to make sure that it was about people who love each other because that's already one of the markers for the government calling it a real marriage for things like immigration status. Making everything a matter of "civil union" would be ok, but religious people would still gripe because they'd believe they were finally proven right. How could the gender of 2 parents harm a child if they're not opposite to each other? What you really want, even if you don't say it that way, is for couples of any kind to have to show some proof that they can be good parents. I'm not opposed to parents having to take classes before having childeren and every few years after that as a matter of course, which I think would satisfy that problem of yours, mostly. I hope you do realize that gender roles are not a must anymore, so anything a child would need from a same sex parent could be had either by the opposite parent or by another family member or a trusted family friend.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272333]Quite possibly...it's also known as "scope creep"....usually it refers to projects that suddenly have more and more requirements piled on them, usually preventing them from completing, and certainly making them late and overbudget.

A typical example of this kind of project (or disaster) is the FBI's virtual case file system. Instead of doing one thing well, it tried to do everything, and the project fell flat on its face. Database projects tend to be quite susceptible to this.

I think the proper word in this case is more like a "slippery moral slope", that is, ok, now we've let gays have marriage, we'll let the polygamists do it next....and, I expect Zeta-flux finds those polygamists quite morally repulsive, along with everyone else on this forum.[/QUOTE]Ok, where I come from that's just called being irresponsible and unable to keep your word and stay on budget. You can't really call this a slippery slope because it's a fearmongering tactic that bigots use to work against equality. As I said in another post, you can't use "what might happen that's bad" as a way to be allowed to be unjust to one group. The fact that you say "along with everyone else on this forum" is one reason I don't think it's a slippery slope, at least not for a few centuries. By then, it may not even matter because of space colonization allowing people to separate when huge problems arise.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272335]Zeta-flux's third point is well taken...those first few gay couples that raise children are going to be a well-motivated, self-chosen lot...will "average" gay couples do as well, especially in the commitment department?[/QUOTE]Do you seriously mean "going to" instead of "are"? Gay couples have raised children for a long time already.

[QUOTE]…I expect Zeta-flux finds those polygamists quite morally repulsive, along with everyone else on this forum.[/QUOTE]Everyone?

[QUOTE]…will "average" gay couples do as well, especially in the commitment department?[/QUOTE]How well do "average" heterosexual couples do in this regard?

FWIW:

[QUOTE]Troll1, Troll2, Troll3 and Troll4 - Yes, we have four trolls. Most people think we have just two, but there are two troll children in the family. We cannot remember when the trolls came to work but it certainly was back when the forum ran on PHPBB. The trolls are tasked with keeping our search engine optimized and with running our FreeBSD server. Our uptime is always above three nines so they are doing an excellent job. We communicate with them via pictographs as their native tongue is guttural and unpleasant to hear, almost like German. Troll1 is our primary point of contact and he is known for his temper. If we ask a question that we have not thoroughly researched beforehand he gets very upset and rants/grunts for a few minutes and then utters the only English word he knows, "Goog", which we assume means "Google". Troll2 is much easier to talk to but he is very shy. [B]Troll1 and Troll2 are married. We learned last year that they are both male. (It is hard to tell just by looking at them!) Apparently, same-sex marriage among trolls is very common. The children were adopted from Troll2's sister, who was horribly maimed by the wheel of a shopping cart. The picture of the trolls you see when you search for new posts, and there aren't any to display, is their wedding photograph.[/B] Trolls usually live a very long time and only celebrate birthdays on leap years. Even though their actual birthday might be in September or December, they celebrate it on February 29th. If we lose something we know to ask the trolls if they have "found" it. The troll children are home schooled and are currently learning 6809 assemby language. We have no idea why, but at least our Color Computer 3 is getting some use. We actually received a package (eBay?) in the mail with an "EDTASM+" cartridge inside, which they snatched up.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10536[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;272348]Everyone?[/QUOTE]
Whoops!!! Let's try that again:
I expect that Zeta-Flux joins everyone else on this forum in finding polygamists morally offensive.
I do not expect that Zeta-Flux finds everyone else on this forum just as morally offensive as polygamists, in spite of what i said the first time, and drafted the second and third times!

When I suggest "scope creep" (or "mission creep") would have been better stated as "moral slippery slope", I am working on improving communication, not stating my viewpoint. It's a serious point worth thinking about; in Z-flux's neck of the woods, it's only been this decade or so that being openly gay wasn't downright dangerous. Gays are just barely accepted as human. (And if you don't think this kind of thing doesn't die hard, just look at Marge Schott and the Cincinnati Reds -- Cincinnati Schools were integrated in the mid 1970s -- attitudes are almost as hard to change as sexual orientation itself!)

So I'd like to put a name on the conservatives condition: Future Shock. Think about it: ever heard of "Friends with Benefits"? SARS? Every horrible mutilation that ever hit the news, including Columbine, VA Tech, the DC sniper, and Waco? The latest resistant-to-everything bugs in canadian hospitals? The Digerati?

When i was thinking of gay parents in the future raising children, at least part of the point is that it takes somewhere between 10 and 25 years to get a good idea of how well or poorly those parents have done, and I don't think we are at the point where significant numbers of children of gay parents have themselves reached the age of parenting. But I invite you to find numbers to the contrary and post them here -- that would be heartening.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272339]Worrying about what "might happen that's bad" isn't a reason to be allowed to be unjust to one group.[/quote]But that begs the question. If the worries are reasonable then it is rational to wait and see what happens in places where it is legal. It can be just as unjust to jump the gun.

[quote]As to your second point, you'd have to make sure that it was about people who love each other because that's already one of the markers for the government calling it a real marriage for things like immigration status.[/quote]I'm not sure it is a good idea for government to somehow require specific forms of "love" before it passes out marriage licenses. In fact, I'd be against such a change. Stating you will love one another should be enough.

[quote]Making everything a matter of "civil union" would be ok, but religious people would still gripe because they'd believe they were finally proven right. How could the gender of 2 parents harm a child if they're not opposite to each other?[/quote]Actually, that is a very good question, which a lot of social scientists have studied and are currently studying. It isn't an open and shut case. Children clearly do better when raised by their biological parents, for example. That's one reason why I'm opposed to all the new (and old) means people use to create children which they don't plan on raising.

[quote]What you really want, even if you don't say it that way, is for couples of any kind to have to show some proof that they can be good parents. I'm not opposed to parents having to take classes before having childeren and every few years after that as a matter of course, which I think would satisfy that problem of yours, mostly. I hope you do realize that gender roles are not a must anymore, so anything a child would need from a same sex parent could be had either by the opposite parent or by another family member or a trusted family friend.[/QUOTE]And I find that a mistaken notion. "Gender roles" (in the broadest sense of the words) are central to humanity, and especially to the process of creating and nurturing young humans.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272355]Whoops!!! Let's try that again:
I expect that Zeta-Flux joins everyone else on this forum in finding polygamists morally offensive.[/quote]I don't find people morally offensive. I also do not necessarily find their actions morally offensive even if I personally know I should never do them.

[quote]It's a serious point worth thinking about; in Z-flux's neck of the woods, it's only been this decade or so that being openly gay wasn't downright dangerous. Gays are just barely accepted as human.[/quote]In "my neck of the woods" humans are humans, regardless of their desires and choices, and have always been so. Those who harass or persecute others are looked down upon here by the significant majority of people.

Still, I think you'll find bullying everywhere, and I find that morally offensive.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272356]But that begs the question. If the worries are reasonable then it is rational to wait and see what happens in places where it is legal. It can be just as unjust to jump the gun.

I'm not sure it is a good idea for government to somehow require specific forms of "love" before it passes out marriage licenses. In fact, I'd be against such a change. Stating you will love one another should be enough.

Actually, that is a very good question, which a lot of social scientists have studied and are currently studying. It isn't an open and shut case. Children clearly do better when raised by their biological parents, for example. That's one reason why I'm opposed to all the new (and old) means people use to create children which they don't plan on raising.

And I find that a mistaken notion. "Gender roles" (in the broadest sense of the words) are central to humanity, and especially to the process of creating and nurturing young humans.[/QUOTE]How can it be just to base law on what "might happen that's might be bad" while denying a group a freedom/privilege that everyone outside that group has now without question? The only reason I mentioned "forms of love" is because in the US there was a time when marriages of people who were not citizens to people who were citizens went without question. Now, however, they are all investigated to make sure it's not a marriage of convenience just to get a green card/citizenship. If you question that, you have to question all marriages for nefarious intentions to be fair.

As for people "creating children they have no intention of raising", I can agree on a man abandoning a pregnant woman, but a few of the others simply allow people who wouldn't be able to have their own children to be parents. For example, a method is now nearing fertility clinic use in a few years which will allow 2 men or 2 women to have their own biological children as a couple, but in the case of two men, they would still require a surrogate to carry the baby to term. It is done by converting and egg of one partner into a sperm for two women or a sperm into an egg for two men. This will effectively make that antigay argument moot as some bigots use it now.

As for gener roles, you can't confine people to them because some people will not fit them in any way. Forcing a boy or girl to do or say or play with certain things based on their gender is cruel as it creates a falsehood when the child doesn't want to do them or doesn't feel as if it is in them to be the "traditional" role. As long as the roles are fulfilled by the parents of the children, it shouldn't matter which parent performs which role, anatomy notwithstanding as a compulsory part you can't avoid yet. Saying, "It's always been done X way means it should always be done X way or has to be done X way or it's wrong" is backward thinking if used in more than very minor factual or procedural cases.

The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.

Just remember those anti-gay conservatives that kept getting found arrested for gay activities in inappropriate places a little while back....and then killing themselves. That speaks to the strength of the gayness...

[QUOTE=Christenson;272386]The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.

Just remember those anti-gay conservatives that kept getting found arrested for gay activities in inappropriate places a little while back....and then killing themselves. That speaks to the strength of the gayness...[/QUOTE]I think I may have thought we were disagreeing when we weren't. I agree with what you say here. I guess I just misunderstood what you were talking about in the "wait and see" category.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272369]How can it be just to base law on what "might happen that's might be bad" while denying a group a freedom/privilege that everyone outside that group has now without question?[/quote]The answer is that I don't view it that way. In my opinion, the question is not about denying a group a freedom/privilege. The question is whether it is good/safe to create a new privilege (or extend our understanding of current privileges). Especially when those new freedoms/privileges can interfere with other freedoms.

[quote]The only reason I mentioned "forms of love" is because in the US there was a time when marriages of people who were not citizens to people who were citizens went without question. Now, however, they are all investigated to make sure it's not a marriage of convenience just to get a green card/citizenship. If you question that, you have to question all marriages for nefarious intentions to be fair.[/quote]Okay.

[quote]As for people "creating children they have no intention of raising", I can agree on a man abandoning a pregnant woman, but a few of the others simply allow people who wouldn't be able to have their own children to be parents.[/quote]And thus we have to balance the desires of those seeking to create children and the rights of the children thus created. I believe a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents in the ideal situation. We shouldn't try to circumvent the child's right to a father and a mother.

[quote]For example, a method is now nearing fertility clinic use in a few years which will allow 2 men or 2 women to have their own biological children as a couple, but in the case of two men, they would still require a surrogate to carry the baby to term. It is done by converting and egg of one partner into a sperm for two women or a sperm into an egg for two men. This will effectively make that antigay argument moot as some bigots use it now.[/quote]Ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary accusation of "bigot", I think we humans should consider long and hard about making such changes to our creation of children.

[quote]As for gener roles, you can't confine people to them because some people will not fit them in any way. Forcing a boy or girl to do or say or play with certain things based on their gender is cruel as it creates a falsehood when the child doesn't want to do them or doesn't feel as if it is in them to be the "traditional" role[/quote]I'm not confining them. Biology is what biology is.

I did make it clear that by "roles" I was speaking broadly in terms of biological differences.

[quote]As long as the roles are fulfilled by the parents of the children, it shouldn't matter which parent performs which role, anatomy notwithstanding as a compulsory part you can't avoid yet. Saying, "It's always been done X way means it should always be done X way or has to be done X way or it's wrong" is backward thinking if used in more than very minor factual or procedural cases.[/QUOTE]I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't. There are other differences that naturally flow from our gender/sexual differences.

Anatomy is a large part of it. Ignoring the role of gender in our being is not rational. The roles of father and mother are not irrelevant, and there are a plethora of studies to back that up.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272386]The problem with a "wait and see" is that very real harm is being done to gay teenagers RIGHT NOW. See the article linked above about 1/4 of Massachusets teens with non-standard sexuality having no fixed address -- acceptance of gayness is a real problem, and allowing gay marriage addresses it in a symbolic way like nothing else. There's also a "public health" positive -- it encourages gay men (who are famous for gazillions of partners) to pick one and stick with it.[/quote]Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272432]Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...[/QUOTE]Ah, there's another instance for which I'd appreciate your clarification and/or amplification.

Your statement is, on the face of it, undeniably true. Within the state of MA gay marriages performed under the laws of that state are recognized as legal.

However, what are your views? Do you regard gay couples who have undertaken a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts as married when they are located anywhere outside of MA?


Paul

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272430]I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't.[/QUOTE]Largely, but not entirely true.

A tiny minority of men can lactate naturally. A larger number are able to lactate after a simple hormone treatment. Some men take this treatment to enhance their bodily appearance (in their opinion, of course) rather than to feed children.

A significant minority of women are either unable to lactate or unable to produce enough milk to feed an infant. The use of wet nurses and bottle feeding in such cases goes back a very long time, certainly millenia and (IMO) probably longer.

For what it's worth, I bottle-fed my youngest brother --- he is 14 years younger than I am. I also took care of the other end on occasion, but that's another matter.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;272439]Ah, there's another instance for which I'd appreciate your clarification and/or amplification.

Your statement is, on the face of it, undeniably true. Within the state of MA gay marriages performed under the laws of that state are recognized as legal.

However, what are your views? Do you regard gay couples who have undertaken a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts as married when they are located anywhere outside of MA?


Paul[/QUOTE]

To be honest I hadn't given it much thought. I imagine I probably would use the same word (i.e. "marriage") for their legal status (which does vary from State to State), their personal view of whether they are married when they are located elsewhere (which may vary from one couple to the next), and my personal definition of marriage (as the union of a man and a woman).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272430]The answer is that I don't view it that way. In my opinion, the question is not about denying a group a freedom/privilege. The question is whether it is good/safe to create a new privilege (or extend our understanding of current privileges). Especially when those new freedoms/privileges can interfere with other freedoms.[/QUOTE]How can increasing freedom be bad when that freedom doesn't actually harm anyone in any real way that matters?

[QUOTE]And thus we have to balance the desires of those seeking to create children and the rights of the children thus created. I believe a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents in the ideal situation. We shouldn't try to circumvent the child's right to a father and a mother.[/QUOTE]I agree that it's the ideal situation, but I think when people talk about wanting the ideal, they often stop thinking in real world terms that the ideal can't always exist, so we have to do what's fastest and safest in each case for the child in question.

[QUOTE]Ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary accusation of "bigot", I think we humans should consider long and hard about making such changes to our creation of children.[/QUOTE]That's what bioethicists are for now.

[QUOTE]I'm not confining them. Biology is what biology is.

I did make it clear that by "roles" I was speaking broadly in terms of biological differences.[/QUOTE]Biological differences are fine as long as you don't use the old reasoning of things like "Since women have the babies, they should stay home with them in every case".

[QUOTE]I disagree. Women have baby feeding organs, and men don't. There are other differences that naturally flow from our gender/sexual differences.

Anatomy is a large part of it. Ignoring the role of gender in our being is not rational. The roles of father and mother are not irrelevant, and there are a plethora of studies to back that up.[/QUOTE]Breast feeding is no longer what it used to be and it might be medicine's idea of "best" which fluctuates every few generations, but with formula and milk banks, that's one less reason to confine a role to women simply because of biology. Women are not always by nature the ones who should stay home with the children just because they are the ones who give birth. Ignoring it totally isn't rational, but relying on it as a standard that is never questioned is also irrational. The roles may not be irrelevant, but the idea of "This is what a father and mother do and nothing else" without respect to individual parents in a situation or their psychological makeup is dangerous.

[QUOTE=xilman;272441]Largely, but not entirely true.

A tiny minority of men can lactate naturally. A larger number are able to lactate after a simple hormone treatment. Some men take this treatment to enhance their bodily appearance (in their opinion, of course) rather than to feed children.

A significant minority of women are either unable to lactate or unable to produce enough milk to feed an infant. The use of wet nurses and bottle feeding in such cases goes back a very long time, certainly millenia and (IMO) probably longer.

For what it's worth, I bottle-fed my youngest brother --- he is 14 years younger than I am. I also took care of the other end on occasion, but that's another matter.


Paul[/QUOTE]Thank you Paul. I'm glad someone besides me knows these things.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272469]How can increasing freedom be bad when that freedom doesn't actually harm anyone in any real way that matters?[/quote]It can't.

But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.

[quote]I agree that it's the ideal situation, but I think when people talk about wanting the ideal, they often stop thinking in real world terms that the ideal can't always exist, so we have to do what's fastest and safest in each case for the child in question.[/quote]Agreed.

[quote]Biological differences are fine as long as you don't use the old reasoning of things like "Since women have the babies, they should stay home with them in every case".[/quote]Agreed.

[quote]Breast feeding is no longer what it used to be and it might be medicine's idea of "best" which fluctuates every few generations, but with formula and milk banks, that's one less reason to confine a role to women simply because of biology. Women are not always by nature the ones who should stay home with the children just because they are the ones who give birth. Ignoring it totally isn't rational, but relying on it as a standard that is never questioned is also irrational. The roles may not be irrelevant, but the idea of "This is what a father and mother do and nothing else" without respect to individual parents in a situation or their psychological makeup is dangerous.[/QUOTE]Agreed.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272472]It can't. But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.[/QUOTE]Why is it not on shoulders of the person who wants to ban it? Freedom should be an afterthought outside of countries with a backward mindset. There should have to be some extremely obvious overriding reason to disallow something from one group that everyone outside that group can already do. "Me" having to prove "why I can or should be allowed" to you so you "allow it" is backwards, I think. I'd go so far as to say that it should be up to the "anti-freedom" person/group because they're the only ones who think it shouldn't happen.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272522]Why is it not on shoulders of the person who wants to ban it? Freedom should be an afterthought outside of countries with a backward mindset. There should have to be some extremely obvious overriding reason to disallow something from one group that everyone outside that group can already do. "Me" having to prove "why I can or should be allowed" to you so you "allow it" is backwards, I think. I'd go so far as to say that it should be up to the "anti-freedom" person/group because they're the only ones who think it shouldn't happen.[/quote]There are a lot of issues here, and I wish I had time to discuss them all but I really do need to finish writing my grant proposal. Let me mention just a few things here, and hopefully someone else will reply.

1. Any change in law which introduces new rights could be characterized as an "expansion of freedom" and those opposed to the expansion as "banners" or "change-a-phobes" or "anti-freedom persons". Is that fair? Where does the burden lie in showing the change does or does not expand freedom?

On the other hand, when legislation is passed which does ban certain activities (rather than clarify what is meant) where does the burden lie?

How do we decide whether a change in law is an extension of rights vs. a clarification of what were already rights?

2. In the US the main legal issue with actual bans on gay marriage are whether (a) they are rationally based, and (b) whether they need to pass strict scrutiny. On the rational basis test, the burden really lies with the opposition to the bans. On the strict scrutiny, if it can be shown that the laws discriminate against a protected class then the burden falls to the supporters of the bans.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272472]But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.[/QUOTE]No, the burden of proof is on those who can describe an actual real harm (just as in your latest post, you lay the burden of proof of irrational basis on those who can show such irrationality!).

If you can't describe any example of harm in any real way, then you have no real basis for complaint, do you?

You know perfectly well what's wrong with demanding proof of a negative (and with trying to get away with arguing two opposing ways in the same argument).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272529]There are a lot of issues here, and I wish I had time to discuss them all but I really do need to finish writing my grant proposal. Let me mention just a few things here, and hopefully someone else will reply.

1. Any change in law which introduces new rights could be characterized as an "expansion of freedom" and those opposed to the expansion as "banners" or "change-a-phobes" or "anti-freedom persons". Is that fair? Where does the burden lie in showing the change does or does not expand freedom?

On the other hand, when legislation is passed which does ban certain activities (rather than clarify what is meant) where does the burden lie?

How do we decide whether a change in law is an extension of rights vs. a clarification of what were already rights?

2. In the US the main legal issue with actual bans on gay marriage are whether (a) they are rationally based, and (b) whether they need to pass strict scrutiny. On the rational basis test, the burden really lies with the opposition to the bans. On the strict scrutiny, if it can be shown that the laws discriminate against a protected class then the burden falls to the supporters of the bans.[/QUOTE]See, that's the problem. It's not a new right unless you just disregard the reason that straight people marry each other is because they love each other and gay people can't marry who they love by and large because there are people who think it's wrong. As to your second point, the burden, I believe, should lie with those whose job it is to make the laws to justify them without using a biased or one-sided argument or one that simply isn't justifiable or proper to be used like, "We believe it's morally wrong/evil, so you can't do it." The decision on the difference should be common sense, but it's not due to the reasons for bigotry and all the other things that straight people gain/meaintain from keeping the status quo who are homophobic.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272601]See, that's the problem. It's not a new right unless you just disregard the reason[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Motivation does not create the right, the wording of the law does. As things currently stand, in most jurisdictions, the law does not grant the right. Whether, or not, that is appropriate law is the topic of discussion.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272641]I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Motivation does not create the right, the wording of the law does. As things currently stand, in most jurisdictions, the law does not grant the right. Whether, or not, that is appropriate law is the topic of discussion.[/QUOTE]It's not "motivation". Straight people are allowed to marry the person whom they love. Gay people are not allowed that same opportunity equally. That's wrongful discrimination, which is supposed to be illegal.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272642]It's not "motivation". Straight people are allowed to marry the person whom they love. Gay people are not allowed that same opportunity equally. That's wrongful discrimination, which is supposed to be illegal.[/QUOTE]
No, by law, a man and a woman are allowed to marry, with some limits. That law may have the effect that you note. However, as worded, each individual man or woman is afforded the same "right" to marry, and, in fact, there are many instances where gay individuals have exercised that right by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
You are arguing that everyone should have a different right, namely the right to marry the individual whom they love.
(I'm not arguing the merits of your argument. I'm just pointing out that you are wishing for a different right. The law says just the law says. If you want to talk about a different set of circumstances, then that is is an arguably good, but different, right.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;272577]No, the burden of proof is on those who can describe an actual real harm (just as in your latest post, you lay the burden of proof of irrational basis on those who can show such irrationality!).

If you can't describe any example of harm in any real way, then you have no real basis for complaint, do you?

You know perfectly well what's wrong with demanding proof of a negative (and with trying to get away with arguing two opposing ways in the same argument).[/QUOTE]

Just so I understand consider the following example. Joe proposes to allow polygamy in his country, because it "expands freedom". George is worried (perhaps irrationally so, perhaps not) that such a change will not be good. He expresses those worries to Joe, who rejects them out of hand.

What level of burden does George have on himself to show his fears have a foundation before they should be considered as relevant to the issue of whether polygamy should be legalized? Does he have to run lots of experiments to show that polygamy will be bad for his country? Will he be given the time to do so before the change is forced upon the electorate?

How much burden does Joe have to show that George's fears are not based in reality? Any at all? If the people around George are convinced by him to vote for a law against polygamy, can it be negated because George didn't yet validate his fears?

[SPOILER]My personal opinion: If George's fears appear rational, then they should be considered rational until proven otherwise, and thus be allowed to counter Joe's claim that the change "expands freedom".[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=Wacky;272647]No, by law, a man and a woman are allowed to marry, with some limits. That law may have the effect that you note. However, as worded, each individual man or woman is afforded the same "right" to marry, and, in fact, there are many instances where gay individuals have exercised that right by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
You are arguing that everyone should have a different right, namely the right to marry the individual whom they love.
(I'm not arguing the merits of your argument. I'm just pointing out that you are wishing for a different right. The law says just the law says. If you want to talk about a different set of circumstances, then that is is an arguably good, but different, right.)[/QUOTE]The problem wth the law is that only straight people want to do what the law allows. Marriage is about love and building a life with that person in our time and not about gender. It's not a different right because everyone should just understand that marriage is marriage, period.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272652]Just so I understand consider the following example. Joe proposes to allow polygamy in his country, because it "expands freedom". George is worried (perhaps irrationally so, perhaps not) that such a change will not be good. He expresses those worries to Joe, who rejects them out of hand.

What level of burden does George have on himself to show his fears have a foundation before they should be considered as relevant to the issue of whether polygamy should be legalized? Does he have to run lots of experiments to show that polygamy will be bad for his country? Will he be given the time to do so before the change is forced upon the electorate?

How much burden does Joe have to show that George's fears are not based in reality? Any at all? If the people around George are convinced by him to vote for a law against polygamy, can it be negated because George didn't yet validate his fears?

[SPOILER]My personal opinion: If George's fears appear rational, then they should be considered rational until proven otherwise, and thus be allowed to counter Joe's claim that the change "expands freedom".[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]The problem is that you can't preemptively be discriminatory. It shouldn't be allowed. It's like arresting people for crimes they might committ instead of have already committed. There is no rational, unbiased, and unbigoted reason for not allowing gay marriage. Polygamy, however, does have at least one rational argument, but even the one it has would be discriminatory on a wide scale due to the people who want it are willing to live with the bad consequences it might have at some point.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272665]Marriage is about love and building a life with that person in our time and not about gender. It's not a different right because everyone should just understand that marriage is marriage, period.[/QUOTE]And rational people disagree with you.

[QUOTE]The problem is that you can't preemptively be discriminatory.[/QUOTE]Which we are not being, because we don't think of marriage the way you do.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272665]Marriage is about love[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? I notice, for example, that "love" does not enter the Wikipedia discussion of marriage until it gets to discussion in context of Roman Catholicism.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272667]And rational people disagree with you.

Which we are not being, because we don't think of marriage the way you do.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, first, how is that not rational? Second, how can you not think of marriage as about love and be human?

[QUOTE=wblipp;272681]Are you sure? I notice, for example, that "love" does not enter the Wikipedia discussion of marriage until it gets to discussion in context of Roman Catholicism.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage[/url][/QUOTE]I didn't say "historical marriages", but in this day and age, marriage is about love unless the person in question is up to something else unsavory or illegal. Why would you or anyone else want marriage to be about something else NOW that doesn't involve some biased or bigoted reasoning that is improper?

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272684]With all due respect, first, how is that not rational? Second, how can you not think of marriage as about love and be human?[/QUOTE]
Here, you appear to be claiming that your interpretation of "marriage" is rational.

Zeta-Flux did not, in any way, claim that your interpretation was irrational.
He did claim that there are other interpretations, and that there are rational people who believe in them.

You continue to fail to admit that, reasonably, anyone can have any interpretation of the term "marriage" other than the one which you choose,
and further, to accept that your interpretation is not the interpretation which is presently codified in the law.

This appears to me to be a very bigoted attitude.

Admit that you wish to have a different "right" recognized and make your case for its recognition. Don't try to co-opt an existing "right" by attempting to change its definition to suit your cause.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272698]Here, you appear to be claiming that your interpretation of "marriage" is rational.

Zeta-Flux did not, in any way, claim that your interpretation was irrational.
He did claim that there are other interpretations, and that there are rational people who believe in them.

You continue to fail to admit that, reasonably, anyone can have any interpretation of the term "marriage" other than the one which you choose,
and further, to accept that your interpretation is not the interpretation which is presently codified in the law.

This appears to me to be a very bigoted attitude.

Admit that you wish to have a different "right" recognized and make your case for its recognition. Don't try to co-opt an existing "right" by attempting to change its definition to suit your cause.[/QUOTE]If that's not what was meant, about it being irrational or not, I apologize. It was just, I think, an easily mistaken comparison to make. I just don't think it's reasonable, and maybe to me reasonable includes what I consider to be necessary components of marriage, to think of marriage without love unless you have ulterior motives. In that case, I don't think it's ok to call it a real marriage, even if it's legal. I do know that my view of it isn't the "codified" idea. Bigoted is the opposite of my idea, by definition, because I am trying to deal with the essence of what marriage is supposed to be, not just what words and laws are said to have it mean. If you don't include love and wanting to build a life with someone as the first proper definition of marriage, you might as well adopt the other person instead or even make a palimony agreement.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272774]If you don't include love and wanting to build a life with someone ...[/QUOTE]
Now, I think that it is appropriate to point to a logical fallacy.
I would say that you present an argument that marriage should include love, etc. -- Perhaps, more formally, that for a marriage relationship to be recognized by law, it should be a relationship based on love.

Let M represent "A relationship that should be allowed to be recognized as marriage", and
L represents "A relationship based on love and wanting to build a life with someone"

If we view your position, "M implies L",

we can conclude "Not L implies Not M". (Relationships lacking love ... should not be recognized as marriages.)

However, from the first, you seem to be arguing for
"R implies L", therefore "R implies M", where R is a properly committed same-sex relationship.

(Also, by the definition of bigotry, I am unconvinced that your attitude on "The definition of marriage" falls outside the requirements)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272432]Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what you are saying...[/QUOTE]

Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272818]Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272838]Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.[/QUOTE]

And your improved suggestion to help undo this harm is what? I didn't claim it was a panacea. This symbolic action will take some time to take effect, just as desegregation and equal opportunity took time to take effect.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272841]And your improved suggestion to help undo this harm is what?[/QUOTE]Parental training.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272786]Now, I think that it is appropriate to point to a logical fallacy.
I would say that you present an argument that marriage should include love, etc. -- Perhaps, more formally, that for a marriage relationship to be recognized by law, it should be a relationship based on love.

Let M represent "A relationship that should be allowed to be recognized as marriage", and
L represents "A relationship based on love and wanting to build a life with someone"

If we view your position, "M implies L",

we can conclude "Not L implies Not M". (Relationships lacking love ... should not be recognized as marriages.)

However, from the first, you seem to be arguing for
"R implies L", therefore "R implies M", where R is a properly committed same-sex relationship.

(Also, by the definition of bigotry, I am unconvinced that your attitude on "The definition of marriage" falls outside the requirements)[/QUOTE]There's one main reason I am directing my point in this manner. The Naturalization and Immigration Service in the US checks for marriages of convenience by trying to show evidence of the couple actually loving each other and not just for one of the couple to get legal status and a green card. That being true, the government already does this in that case, so it should logically do it in all cases for it to be allowed to be considered legal. If not, why not? Otherwise, it's unfair and judgemental, even if it is necessary in our era.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272838]Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.[/QUOTE]Nothing? Well, I know why you say that, but it's a step in the right direction.

[QUOTE=Christenson;272818]Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.[/QUOTE]Not to be purposely ironic about it, or whatever you want to call it, but i could kiss you for this comment.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272842]Parental training.[/QUOTE]As sensible as this suggestion is, there's no legal way to force a parent to accept that his or her child is gay without brainwashing, if it isn't accepted naturally.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;272348]Everyone?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272852]Not to be purposely ironic about it, or whatever you want to call it, but i could kiss you for this comment.[/QUOTE]

Please don't kiss me; walruses aren't my type.....especially not male ones.....and my wife will be jealous! :smile:

My actual thinking on this, having just seen how a "computer" was supposed to be the solution to the educational problems in my well-to-do district (and without "no child left behind" they wouldn't have wasted the $$), is that some hard work and hard thinking has to be put into education. Start with why we have all these prescriptions, but never seem to ask the teachers, especially the good ones, just what it is they might need? And while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that a classroom full of kids, all the same age and supposedly the same knowledge level, teaches all the wrong lessons to kids about diversity of all kinds.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272850]There's one main reason I am directing my point in this manner. The Naturalization and Immigration Service in the US checks for marriages of convenience by trying to show evidence of the couple actually loving each other and not just for one of the couple to get legal status and a green card. That being true, the government already does this in that case, so it should logically do it in all cases for it to be allowed to be considered legal. If not, why not? Otherwise, it's unfair and judgemental, even if it is necessary in our era.[/QUOTE]

But, it is just your opinion that it should be a requirement that "M" implies "L".
Although you have reasoned argument to advocate it, that is not a presently accepted requirement.

And, you are still missing the point that, logically, your desired outcome does not automatically derive from the requirement (even if it were accepted).

[QUOTE=Wacky;272858]But, it is just your opinion that it should be a requirement that "M" implies "L".
Although you have reasoned argument to advocate it, that is not a presently accepted requirement.

And, you are still missing the point that, logically, your desired outcome does not automatically derive from the requirement (even if it were accepted).[/QUOTE]I understand that my "desired outcome" doesn't do squat, but if the government is already using love as a determination of real marriages for NIS purposes, it's only fair that they do it for every marriage. If they require it for one, it has to be required for all or it is discriminatory, which is supposed to be illegal.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272859]but if the government is already using love as a determination of real marriages for NIS purposes[/QUOTE]
The NIS is tasked with detecting fraudulent marriages. Rather than REQUIRING "love", the assessment of that, along with other aspects of the relationship, is utilized as an indicator of the nature of the relationship.

Some marriages, lacking "love" do exist, but still are recognized by the government as valid marriages.

Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272889]Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.[/QUOTE]
If Jwb52z is doing this then in my opinion he is right to do so. No progress can be made on any human rights issue anywhere unless established definitions which are based on inherent discrimination are challenged. The recent success in Saudi Arabia, where women are now allowed to vote and will shortly be allowed to stand for election, will also have been opposed by people there who considered that an election was by definition voting by men for male candidates for office.

I would be interested to read your own views on who should and should not be allowed to marry by the way, Wacky, rather than only comments on the logic of what other people write. If you want to share those views, that is.:smile:

[QUOTE=Wacky;272889]The NIS is tasked with detecting fraudulent marriages. Rather than REQUIRING "love", the assessment of that, along with other aspects of the relationship, is utilized as an indicator of the nature of the relationship.

Some marriages, lacking "love" do exist, but still are recognized by the government as valid marriages.

Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.[/QUOTE]Why is the NIS allowed to use one definition that is different if I'm not and have both be valid somehow?