Same-sex Marriage

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

3) Calling two things by the same name does not make them equal, nor does it prove the existence of either.

Thanks for capitulating on the inequality of "gay marriage" with regards to "straight marriage." By way of your own posts you have surgically separated these Siamese twins.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

3) Calling two things by the same name does not make them equal, nor does it prove the existence of either.

Originally Posted by Larv

Thanks for capitulating on the inequality of "gay marriage" with regards to "straight marriage." By way of your own posts you have surgically separated these Siamese twins.

Ah, but the key difference here is that the similarities between the marriage of two same sex partners and the marriage of two opposite sex partners is not based SOLELY on the word choice, nor on bald assertions of equivalence... the similarities are not based solely on the label of "marriage" nor on empty and ill-defined religious concepts. The similarities are rather profound, clearly definable regardless of worldview, and overlap in many consistent and measurable ways... whereas my point in your quote referred specifically to calling "god" the same thing as "love," and how the mere act of doing that does not mean the two are equal, and that this was nothing more than a bald assertion with no foundation that is consistent across worldviews or ideology.

Nice try, but no capitulation whatsoever there. As I've previously put forth, and which nobody has yet rebutted, a marriage defines the relationship itself, not the genitals members of that relationship are required to have. Adding the word "gay" or "straight" in front of it is an extraneous descriptor which brings little, if any, useful value to the discussion AFAIC.

Now, please stop quote mining in an attempt to play "gotcha!" with me, and remain focused on presenting a meritorious argument for your own position, or demonstrate where the one I've put forth is somehow faulty.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...Now, please stop quote mining in an attempt to play "gotcha!" with me, and remain focused on presenting a meritorious argument for your own position, or demonstrate where the one I've put forth is somehow faulty.

Hey, I'm good to go with legalizing same-sex marriage, so long as it is deemed constitutional by a state's supreme court. Who am I to question such an official opinion? I count seven states now that have legalized same-sex marriage, owing to favorable supreme court decisions. I'm all for them.

But there are still forty-three states that have not done so. And in those states I would be just as supportive to their supreme-court's decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Can you say the same thing? Are you not in favor of the principles of a constitutional republic? Or do you place yourself above the law? Remember, the ratio of constitutionality for same-sex marriage among American states is still only 7:43.

[Jway]

Okay, I'm going to preface this post with what I think is my 3rd or 4th notation that I am pro same-sex marriage, based on ongoing desire for (total) equality of opportunity.

I don't know if counter arguments have been explored fully, so I'll offer one of those up. If addressed already, and fellow posters think this was addressed sufficiently before, then please disregard this post and, if you please, let me know where on the site that occurred.

I think one reason I hear routinely for "why get married" has to do with child rearing. This is a life long (and life beginning) process that I have just summarized into two words. I believe couples who are same sex are very capable of child rearing. I'm fairly convinced that they are incapable, as a couple, of reproduction - giving birth to own child. I know of work arounds for this, and am really just attempting to state the obvious.

I do think there is a plausible case to be made for child rearing of a child that is "not your own." The case being that parenting could be adversely impacted by parents where perhaps only one, and perhaps neither are the biological parent. This is not something that is unique to same-sex couples, but it would seem to be true that ALL same sex couples are potential parental units where it is not possible that both persons (parents) are the biological parent.

As I type this, I can feel my own bias coming through and poking holes in the case I am making. But, I think what I'm looking for is that this idea of child rearing, is far more ingrained in us as a species, when it comes to marriage, than the idea of marriage as having to be say between a man and a woman, or has to be between a monogamous couple. And I think those two are pretty darn high on the scale of social conventions, but not as high as the case for child rearing by biological parents, as reason to get married.

So, while addressing and refuting the case I am putting forth, please also speak to notion of whether or not you see this as being something that points to inherent inequality of same sex and heterosexual marriages? Perhaps you think it is only to a small degree this inequality. Or perhaps whatever inequality may be there, you could argue this is (somehow) advantageous for same sex couplings. I guess what I'm saying is I can see abrasive ways of responding to this, and am hoping those, along with gentle and balanced perspectives are brought to the table.

Another related question to this is why get married if not for child rearing?

[sman]

Originally Posted by Jway

I think one reason I hear routinely for "why get married" has to do with child rearing. This is a life long (and life beginning) process that I have just summarized into two words. I believe couples who are same sex are very capable of child rearing. I'm fairly convinced that they are incapable, as a couple, of reproduction - giving birth to own child. I know of work arounds for this, and am really just attempting to state the obvious.

It sounds like maybe you're worried about the effects of same-sex marriages on the childeren that grow up in them. The childeren of same-sex marriages do not vary in any measurable way from other childeren. I think the worry stems from the North American and European assumption that who childeren turn out to be depends upon how their parents parent.

I suggest you investigate the nurture assumption more skeptically. Start here.
Judith Rich Harris: Challenging The Nurture Assumption (op-ed on The Psychology Place, August 1997).

Originally Posted by Jway

So, while addressing and refuting the case I am putting forth, please also speak to notion of whether or not you see this as being something that points to inherent inequality of same sex and heterosexual marriages? Perhaps you think it is only to a small degree this inequality. Or perhaps whatever inequality may be there, you could argue this is (somehow) advantageous for same sex couplings. I guess what I'm saying is I can see abrasive ways of responding to this, and am hoping those, along with gentle and balanced perspectives are brought to the table.

Another related question to this is why get married if not for child rearing?

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what case you're putting forth. But I can think of a few non-traditional arrangements, since you have my time:

Same-sex pairing, of course, the topic of this thread.

Abstinance. Like priests or eunichs.

Communal sex, maybe modeled after chimpanzee procreation, where males casually line up when the female is in estrus.

Institutional polyandry. I envision a society of women that keep men for sex and other things, like carpentry or heavy lifting. When she wants something new in bed, she just runs to the pound and picks one up.

My wife and I have an arrangement not unlike this last one, accept that she's not interested in other men and she allows me to believe that I have more power than I do. It's probably important to be careful of the ego when raising men - he'll be happier and more productive if he thinks he's in charge sometimes.

This is becomeing the norm, I think. When I mention "The Boss" to other men, they know what I mean. Even by boss nods his head knowingly, and his wife seems to be his boss. I think men are better suited for the subordinate role.

Anyway, the point is (that's right, I have a point) that modern marriage is deviant, even if we're talking about a heterosexual pairing. Today we marry for personal reasons like love, personal happiness and other non-adaptive modern inventions. We can be less reserved about experimental forms by remembering that all modern marriages are experimental.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

But there are still forty-three states that have not done so. And in those states I would be just as supportive to their supreme-court's decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Can you say the same thing? Are you not in favor of the principles of a constitutional republic?

Of course I am, but a few short points. One, a SCOTUS decision is not in any way final, and court decisions are often overturned. This is especially apparent in cases surrounding issues of discrimination, whereby previous court rulings allowed certain forms of discrimination, but were later overturned when challenged by new cases. In short, SCOTUS ruling is not the final say in matters of constitutionality, just the current one.

Second, I tend to prefer that the legality of marriage between two same sex partners be done via legislation, not judicial fiat. While I certainly feel there is ample room to argue that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional and warrant being struck down by our courts, my personal preference is that we as a society should be enlightened enough to codify the equal protections of same sex partners as pertains to marriage into our laws themselves... via our legislature. I believe this is how it was done in DC, and potentially also Massachusetts, but I must admit that I'm having a bit of a memory fart about those particular facts at the moment.

Originally Posted by Jway

I don't know if counter arguments have been explored fully, so I'll offer one of those up. If addressed already, and fellow posters think this was addressed sufficiently before, then please disregard this post and, if you please, let me know where on the site that occurred.

I think one reason I hear routinely for "why get married" has to do with child rearing.


<...>

Another related question to this is why get married if not for child rearing?

Like sman, I'm not following your point 100%, but I wonder if you saw my point in post #19 regarding biology, and whether or not you find that a valid refutation of the position you're now putting forth:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

When considering marriages or partnerships, biology is rather irrelevant, despite your suggestion above to the contrary. As you well know, we don't require that two opposite sex partners be reproductively viable before allowing them to marry. We don't disallow infertile people from marrying, or people who simply have no plans to ever have children. Or, look at the elderly... people in their 70s or 80s... They're allowed to marry without question, despite the impossibility of offspring conception from their pairing.

So, my point... the biology is not factored in... not one iota... for opposite sex couples, so it should not be factored in either for same sex couples either. Anyone who suggests biology should be relevant is offering a double standard... putting forth an inconsistent criterion... applying it to one group, but not the other... without a relevant secular reason for doing so.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by sman

It sounds like maybe you're worried about the effects of same-sex marriages on the childeren that grow up in them.

Not worried at all.

I believe I could make arguments for why it is beneficial to have same sex partners as parents. Thus what I'm looking for is intellectual honesty that reinforces idea that parents, and types of couplings (or could be more than couples) plays a role in child rearing.

I think we live in a (world) society where norms are in place with regards to how child rearing looks within family unit. It seems to take place in animal kingdom as well. I find that there are plenty of exceptions to the norms, but also that there is consistency in idea of the norms. One consistent idea is that when couples reproduce, this is good social reason for them to marry. Again, there are several exceptions to this norm, but some of those exceptions show up, I believe, as common dysfunction, i.e. deadbeat dad. And again, I feel like there are work arounds to many, perhaps all, of these social dysfunctions. But intellectual honesty tells me that they do exist and I believe they do have impact on child rearing.

The childeren of same-sex marriages do not vary in any measurable way from other childeren. I think the worry stems from the North American and European assumption that who childeren turn out to be depends upon how their parents parent.

I think worry is a poor choice of framing this discussion. Your stating that there is no measurable variation in same-sex couplings doesn't quite cut it for me. I am saying that there is perception, I believe a common one, that says stability and well defined roles of parents impacts the nurturing of children in a family unit. Whether this impact is positive or negative is not quite the case I am putting forth. That there is an impact is the case.

Let's say we had scenarios such as:
- heterosexual parents (2), roughly same age as each other, no more than 25 years older then oldest child
- same-sex parents (2), roughly same age as each other, no more than 25 years older than oldest child
- heterosexual parents (2), roughly same age as each other, at least 35 years age difference from oldest child
- same-sex parents (2), same criteria as above
- heterosexual parents (4), all within 10 years of age of each other, no more than 25 years older
- bi-sexual parents (6), same criteria as previous one
- single male parent (1), no more than 25 years older than oldest child
- celibate parents (2), no more than 10 years older than oldest child

And I could go on with long list. Near end, I intentionally threw in ones that would be outside the norm. In none of these cases did I say whether parents were biological. Part of my point is that matters, and I stand by idea that in same-sex, there is I believe, no chance that both parents could be biological parent of the child. Again, whether that is good or bad, is not the point I am raising.

Do you think parents who are say 14 years old, regardless of sexual orientation, would have same impact on child development as parents who are 64 years old? If not, please explain why not? What noticeable variations may occur? What if it were one 14 year old parent in the home, who happens to be independently wealthy, and four 64 year old parents who happen to all, collectively, be below poverty level for household income?

I realize the last paragraph is a bit off topic, though is tangential to the point I'm making and am hoping that perhaps another way of looking at the perceived norms may elicit different responses.

I suggest you investigate the nurture assumption more skeptically. Start here.
Judith Rich Harris: Challenging The Nurture Assumption (op-ed on The Psychology Place, August 1997).

Please cite what from this article you feel is worthy contribution to the discussion. I read about half of the link and didn't find it to be all that credible. Nor do I see how language usage of a developing child is example of child rearing. I think the article is related to the topic, but I'd rather have quoted passages to work from as I found it easy to dismiss given it's discourse.

I can think of a few non-traditional arrangements, since you have my time:

Same-sex pairing, of course, the topic of this thread.

Abstinance. Like priests or eunichs.

Communal sex, maybe modeled after chimpanzee procreation, where males casually line up when the female is in estrus.

Institutional polyandry. I envision a society of women that keep men for sex and other things, like carpentry or heavy lifting. When she wants something new in bed, she just runs to the pound and picks one up.

The case I am putting forth has to do with how these relationships can and do impact child development. Feel free to select any of the ones you have put forth or the ones I have above, or additional ones. I am looking for broader point discussion, though feel that specifics for type of parents may be of help.

My wife and I have an arrangement not unlike this last one, accept that she's not interested in other men and she allows me to believe that I have more power than I do. It's probably important to be careful of the ego when raising men - he'll be happier and more productive if he thinks he's in charge sometimes.

This is becomeing the norm, I think. When I mention "The Boss" to other men, they know what I mean. Even by boss nods his head knowingly, and his wife seems to be his boss. I think men are better suited for the subordinate role.

TMI!!!

LOL

[lemit]

I'd like to retract something I wrote earlier.

When I conceded the case could be made that homosexuality was not natural, I was boxing myself into an over-specific use of the word "natural" and forgetting that even I had used the word differently before that.

Sorry.

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Jway

I believe I could make arguments for why it is beneficial to have same sex partners as parents. Thus what I'm looking for is intellectual honesty that reinforces idea that parents, and types of couplings (or could be more than couples) plays a role in child rearing.

<...>

Do you think parents who are say 14 years old, regardless of sexual orientation, would have same impact on child development as parents who are 64 years old? If not, please explain why not? What noticeable variations may occur? What if it were one 14 year old parent in the home, who happens to be independently wealthy, and four 64 year old parents who happen to all, collectively, be below poverty level for household income?

<...>

The case I am putting forth has to do with how these relationships can and do impact child development.

I find that you're still struggling to stay on topic. As you'll note, this thread is about same sex marriage, not about the potential benefits and costs to a childs upbringing resulting from the various permutations of parental groupings... two parents... one parent... hetero parents... gay parents... polygamous parents... parents of various ages and income brackets... etc...

Those are all completely tangential to the discussion taking place, and should not be discussed here. It could surely turn into an interesting discussion, so don't get me wrong, but that discussion should be held in a thread of its own. This thread has a specific topic, on which it should not be too terribly challenging to stay.


As I have previously noted, the point upon which several of your recent posts have touched, and which you have not bothered to address...

We require neither tests nor proof of fertility and fecundity prior to allowing two opposite sex partners to marry, so the implication that this is somehow relevant in a discussion about allowing two same sex partners to marry is specious, completely misguided, and puts forth a painfully transparent double standard.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I find that you're still struggling to stay on topic.

Actually, I am not.

As you'll note, this thread is about same sex marriage, not about the potential benefits and costs to a childs upbringing resulting from the various permutations of parental groupings... two parents... one parent... hetero parents... gay parents... polygamous parents... parents of various ages and income brackets... etc...

I have made the point previously of how this is related to marriage. Please quote that if you are having issues with how this was brought in.

Those are all completely tangential to the discussion taking place, and should not be discussed here.

I disagree. They are being discussed here. You are apparently incapable of discussing them here.

As I have previously noted, the point upon which several of your recent posts have touched, and which you have not bothered to address...

We require neither tests nor proof of fertility and fecundity prior to allowing two opposite sex partners to marry, so the implication that this is somehow relevant in a discussion about allowing two same sex partners to marry is specious, completely misguided, and puts forth a painfully transparent double standard.

And again, a very common perception among humans in I think just about every society I am aware of, in most eras, is that child rearing is an aspect of WHY persons get married. It is not the only aspect. That you fail to see it as an aspect is on you, and so far, on you alone in this thread.

I am not addressing fertility nor fecundity in what I am bringing up. Or if I am it is secondary. Perhaps you would be wise to quote what I am saying.

So, I'll repost what I said earlier that is I believe furthering the discussion. If you feel it is not, you are welcome to not participate. If you feel my topic is misguided, then please bring up with moderator and we will go from there. I said in post #48:

I think we live in a (world) society where norms are in place with regards to how child rearing looks within family unit. It seems to take place in animal kingdom as well. I find that there are plenty of exceptions to the norms, but also that there is consistency in idea of the norms. One consistent idea is that when couples reproduce, this is good social reason for them to marry. Again, there are several exceptions to this norm, but some of those exceptions show up, I believe, as common dysfunction, i.e. deadbeat dad. And again, I feel like there are work arounds to many, perhaps all, of these social dysfunctions. But intellectual honesty tells me that they do exist and I believe they do have impact on child rearing.

To see this as me making a case that a couple is required to reproduce in order to be married would be, how you say, misguided. If you can find the words, and/or implication of "requirement" in my post, then perhaps I will believe your spin is accurate.

Marriage creates roles. This is part of the norm. At the most basic level, it creates the role of "spouse." People who are not married, are incapable of being a spouse, by the norms we have set up.

Not all marriages produce children. I could state that 14 times, but not sure if that would be enough for some persons reading this thread. Some marriages do include children. In my estimation, that is a the vast majority of marriages. I would say at least 80% of marriages in all areas of this planet, in all eras of human history. Not all couples who bear children, while in a relationship, are married. Again, I could state this 14 times, and not sure if some people on this thread would hear this.

I am suggesting that marriages produce roles (norms), and in some marriages (I believe vast majority), the role of "parent" occurs. I am claiming that this role has impact on child rearing. And that depending on the type of marriage, the type of coupling, I believe it could have noticeable impact. In a same-sex marriage, I believe the impact would be noticeable. Whether that is "good" or "bad" impact is not what I am alluding to. Perhaps that is inescapable, but I am furthering discussion on this thread by making light of what I believe is one of the main reasons why humans marry. Again, not all humans marry for this reason, and not all humans who bear children, get married.