Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by xilman

OK, I think I understand your position now.

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

Paul

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.

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Am I the only one who doesn't know what "mission creep" means?

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.

[Christenson]

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?

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

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.

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.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Christenson

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.

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.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Christenson

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?

Do you seriously mean "going to" instead of "are"? Gay couples have raised children for a long time already.

[Xyzzy]

…I expect Zeta-flux finds those polygamists quite morally repulsive, along with everyone else on this forum.

Everyone?

[Xyzzy]

…will "average" gay couples do as well, especially in the commitment department?

How well do "average" heterosexual couples do in this regard?

[Xyzzy]

FWIW:

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. 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. 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.

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10536

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Everyone?

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Worrying about what "might happen that's bad" isn't a reason to be allowed to be unjust to one group.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.