Same-sex Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

Laughable I find your request for citations and evidence... a double standard at best considering practically every single point you've made is based on nothing more than a personal faith based blind assertion of some god concept.

 

Most of your questions are completely irrelevant to the topic or my stance, and I find most of them silly misrepresentations of my actual arguments. However, you seem to think I'm somehow not capable of responding to your "opus," :hihi: ... so let me offer you the response you've requested so we can move this thread back on topic (which, this entire tangent with you, is not).

 

 

As I stated, love as concept and practice is well grounded in traditions of religion and philosophy. It is from this usage that marriage ceremonies elaborate on the concept and from which human unions are defined. On this thread, I believe that matters. It is pertinent to the subject.

Indeed, which is why I brought it up. I mentioned the love of two same sex individuals, and you then were challenged when you equivocated god with love.

 

I pointed out how neither concept requires the other, despite your implications to the contrary.

 

I agree with your point in the quote above that the concept has been explored thoroughly in philosophy and religion. I don't deny that for a moment. However, your quote has nothing to do with my position, which was to point out to you that we do not need god to understand love, and that love is not limited to two individuals with different genitalia, nor only to theists and believers.

 

 

Is there historical, philosophical, religious and spiritual examples to back up your equivalency claim? If yes, please cite these.

You are asking me this after I stated that your claim that "god equals love" is equivalent to a claim that "leprechauns equal euphoria." The thrust of my point, which I believe was rather obvious to even a child, is that there is no supporting evidence of this "god" to which you refer, and hence there is an equivalence to leprechauns, since there is no supporting evidence of their existence either. The comparison was that your attempt to equivocate a well understood neurophysiological concept (love) with an imaginary friend (god) was silly, and I used the example provided to illustrate this. I was using a similar, but less baggage laden, concept to provide example of how your assertion was unfounded, non-sequitur, and based on nothing more than your non-standard definition of love... a non-standard definition motivated by nothing more than your personal faith and worldview.

 

Quite simply, even people who believe in god, or who state that "god is love" would acknowledge that love is a stand alone concept, despite any overlap it has with their god concept.

 

 

It matters as far as consensus goes. I was making point that this isn't my unique mental construct, and is something that humanity has thought for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

But this is a total red herring, as I never suggested or implied that your point was unique to you. This is part of what prompted my request for you to read my posts again. You were responding to points I never made.

 

I never challenged the idea that "lots of people think god equals love." No, not once. What I did do, however, was suggest that the number of people who hold this belief has zero bearing on the truth or relevance of the assertion, and further that a person can love another without the god concept ever once entering the equation.

 

 

Perhaps. But I have provided a synonym that has historical and current basis in our world.

Perhaps, nothing. You CONTINUE to refer to this god concept, and you've failed to define what precisely that is. This is the challenge. God is nothing more than an ambiguously defined three letter word, and the thrust of my point is that the ceremony of marriage is in NO WAY contingent nor dependent upon that ambiguously defined three letter word.

 

You are trying to move the goal posts. For instance, you are now suggesting that god and love are synonyms. I challenge that assertion, as there are many things associated with the god concept which have zero to do with the love concept.

 

I accept that your personal worldview has a definition of the god concept which heavily overlaps with your love concept. No problems there. What I'm saying, though, is that love is definable in the contexts I provided, and it is NOT dependent on having an active belief in a god concept. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make this point for you.

 

However, this is YET ANOTHER red herring... or, at the very least, you are desperately forgetting the context of the dialog. We are talking about marriage... specifically, marriage between two same sex partners, and the idea of love applies to those partners equally as it does with opposite sex partners.

 

This god mumbo jumbo is completely tangential, off-topic, and irrelevant.

 

 

Now, if you want to make the case that I... as an atheist... cannot feel love for another human being because I don't accept the existence of a magic sky pixie... some celestial dictator who is so petty as to require my belief and submission... then please do so. However, I'll tell you up front, you'll lose that battle, no matter how forcefully you close your eyes and plug your ears to arguments which are counter to your own.

 

 

 

So, we are back to it being popularity contest. The views I am citing are hardly unique to me. I am claiming they are written in ancient texts, current literature and are addressed often in marriage ceremonies that I've attended. Your attempts to isolate them to my own ideology are so far inaccurate.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant to my point, and also a complete misrepresentation of the position I am putting forth.

 

My point is that truth is not based on popularity.

My point is that the concept of love is in no way dependent on the concept of god.

My point is that marriage is in no way dependent on these ancient texts to which you refer.

 

Not once have I suggested that your ideology is isolated or not shared by others, so stop with the strawmen already, will ya?

 

 

 

And yet, for many [love = god]. I accept that for you it does not. And for several others that are like you. Could you concede that in reality we share that for several like me, it is equivocal?

Absolutely. I've stated exactly that repeatedly. For many people, love equals god. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or the points I've made.

 

 

It's like that, but I don't believe I can cite either marriage ceremonies nor literature in human history where persons have said "bananas equal unicorns."

This is a completely silly comment, and a distortion of the position being put forth. Your response is further evidence that you have a critical comprehension failure when reading my posts. The point I was making was NOT that people... in marriage ceremonies... suggest that bananas equal unicorns. Further, my point was NOT that people... in marriage ceremonies... don't equivocate god with love. I could list millions of other things which were NOT my point.

 

Instead, I'll remind readers that my point is that ceremonies happen without god, and that love is still present, despite gods absence. It logically follows that god is not required for love, nor is god required for marriage.

 

This all began when I made the point that two same sex people love each other in precisely the same manner as two opposite sex people, and that there is no valid reason for disallowing them from uniting in marriage. Further, the point is that marriage itself is in no way whatsoever dependent on either religion or god, as evidenced by the fact that atheists have been marrying for countless years, and all without challenge.

 

 

 

I am equivocating Love and God. Just as I equivocate Life and God.

Which was precisely my point. Why this whole chain of red herrings if you openly concede that you're doing what I said you were doing? What a ridiculous waste of time and server space this has become.

 

 

Where did I concede that [love can exist without god]? Can you please quote this?

Sure thing.

 

Love is a concept which does not need god for definition.

I agree with this. ... The definition is not needed, though I observe that it is desired.

 

That was easy.

 

 

if I must have physical proof that something is God and is only God (aka, I must validate dogma), then i may come up empty handed.

Correction. You WILL come up empty handed, as you've not defined your god concept in a falsifiable way which is consistently repeatable by others who hold a different worldview.

 

I do, however, appreciate your candor in acknowledging your inability in this regard.

 

 

Okay by me. Just as Love as physical object, and something that can only be called love thus far is without physical proof. If you have such proof that Love exists, and only exists as Love within physical world, I'd be interested in said proof.

I'd first ask what the hell constitutes proof that's NOT within the physical world. I'd second show you some MRIs and PET scans, and third a mother holding her child. Proving love is simple, mostly because it has a consistent definition across cultures which does not hinge on a specific worldview based on bronze aged fairy tales and superstitions.

 

 

 

I have and you have insinuated such. When you said this before:

"and really is nothing more than a bald assertion with no basis."

 

That insinuates that my equivocation is isolated to me.

No, sir. I beg to differ. It does not insinuate any such thing. Perhaps I could have been more precise with my language, and stated that you were making a "bald assertion with no basis in reality," but the fact remains... Just because countless religiot zombies happen to agree with your definition of love equals god does not somehow make it true, nor anything more than a bald assertion.

 

I posit that love is much more profound and wide spread than belief in god. This is supported by the simple fact that there are more people on this earth who love someone than there are people who believe in a deity, and also the fact that non-human animals have been shown to demonstrate love.

 

 

 

So far, you have not offered up those explanations, so I'll stand here and continue to claim that (Agape) Love equals God.

Can we at least agree that a dictionary offers a close approximation of how love is defined? I mean, with the terms you're using, we could argue that no single word or concept is accepted by all people. That's hardly going to be helpful, nor is it representative of the points I was making (as summarized AGAIN above).

 

In further support of my stated position, the word "god" does not appear a single time on this page, not from any source listed:

define: love - Google Search

 

 

 

 

 

Please do. And please link me to thread of which you speak. Personally, "neocortical mechanisms" being hijacked sounds like balooey. I understand the terms being used, but you are seemingly putting this forth as intention by religion. To do just what you feel is taking place in the hijacking process. As if religion would be unique to this as well. Wouldn't this be true of any dogma? Someone who is convinced in scientific dogma, wouldn't they be up to same thing?

I find great humor in the fact that you are critiquing a priori a work which you have not even seen. What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you often completely reject scientific research before reading it? :)

 

Either way, you can look here (just bear in mind that religious and god talk is against their rules, so you'll have to stick to the science presented, and argue against the work on its merits, not on the fact that it doesn't align with your worldview).

 

 

 

I'd add in there, that WE love ourselves. And WE love God.

And this is where your point fails. It'd be fine if you said that YOU love god, but the moment you try to externalize that position you lose all credibility. Also, to repeat, you've yet to offer a consistent definition for that ambiguously defined three letter word (god).

 

 

 

But why? You are yet to explain homosexual love.

Really? You don't think I've explained it? Well, I disagree, and think I explained it in a very straight forward manner, in terms that even laymen could understand. I'm sorry if it was over your head.

 

 

Correct, I wouldn't claim that God is completely irrelevant in some cases. I would concede that the concept and connotations of God is for some, in the proverbial room, irrelevant to how they feel in relation to others.

 

Like, I might claim that gravity is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here. While you (and really I) would claim that the concept may be, but as experience and existence goes, no gravity is not completely irrelevant in cases where the concept is denied and deemed invalid.

No, you fail again. God is important to YOU... important to others on this planet... but not to the concept of marriage itself. Marriage happens without god. My point is truly that simple.

 

 

 

Human constructed marriage ceremonies can occur without conceptual acknowledgment of God or Divine. Even in those cases, God is still relevant.

Yet another bald assertion, and an arrogant/condescending one at that. I challenge you to prove it. ... Prove to me that god was at all relevant in the marriage of all of my atheist friends. You won't, because you CAN'T. It's a bald assertion, and a fallacious one at that.

 

 

Will you allow for inner observation and non physical evidence?

No, absolutely not. That does not meet the standard of evidence held by any reasonable or scientifically minded person.

 

 

 

 

 

IMO, what I am saying is like saying gravity must be present if a marriage is occurring on earth. Can't see gravity and some people in room may say it is a myth and choose not to accept any theories which provide evidence of it at work. Shall we then conclude that for these people, not only is the concept of gravity irrelevant, but it is not present at their ceremonies, because of their convictions?

Oh, pull-eez. You can measure gravity. You can predict it's effects, and you can test it. You can do NONE of that with god, which is why I said you may as well be talking about the Ents (thanks REASON :hihi: ).

 

 

 

 

Nope dude. I'm pretty sure I'm spot on with your point.

But that doesn't mean you were. All you've done is get us into a completely off-topic tangent using silly semantic games motivated by unprovable worldviews which are not relevant to the concept of marriage itself (relevant to some people and their concept of marriage, but not marriage itself).

 

 

 

 

Now, let's talk about gay marriage. It should be legal, it should be called a marriage, and I will respond willingly to any further posts on that topic. This other god ridiculousness can be handled in another thread.

 

To reiterate, I will not be responding to any more of your posts in this thread unless they are specific in addressing (and somehow relevant to) the topic of gay marriage.

[freeztar]

Mod team. Thanks for the split! Much appreciated.

 

You're welcome. Though, there is still have a problem. There are two themes in this new thread, "same-sex marriage" and "God in Marriage".

 

As these two themes are intertwined in most posts, it would be best if we continue this thread on the topic of "same sex marriage". Any further discussion about "God in marriage" should be saved for its own thread in the Theology Forum. Thanks.

[Jway]

Per moderator input, I'll stick to IN's recent points that address same sex marriage and in this thread will ignore the God in marriage stuff from this point forth.

 

...and after review of all the defensive, ad hominem, vitriol commentary, all of which I'd be glad to respond to on another thread, but not this one, I found this tucked at the bottom.

 

Now, let's talk about gay marriage. It should be legal, it should be called a marriage,

 

Funny thing is, we agree on this. Actually, not terribly funny, and I've known this for last few pages of discussion. Minus the "should" word, and I'm right there with you. Though your points (as usual) don't leave much room for discussion. And I pity the person who dares disagree with you on these assertions.

 

How about responding to the posts where I did bring up same-sex marriage, even if we agree? I realize it's not as fun, but perhaps you could show a brother a little love?

 

If only looking for point where we might disagree, perhaps there is the one where I am saying same-sex marriages would be gateway to other types of marriage. Really, there are very few examples I can think of that I believe would perhaps never be permissible by society. My point isn't that gateway is bad or wrong. The point is that with sense of entitlement that we have with (traditional) marriage unions, I think further forms of marriage could drain the system. In this view, I could easily see homosexuals, along with heterosexuals arguing against these other types of marriage. I can easily see those who favor monogamous marriages using claim that anything that is not monogamous is not a true marriage. While this is a jumping a bit ahead, again the point I am raising is that homosexual marriages could impact the system (of entitlements), causing a drain of funds and resources. And if not same-sex marriages, then I believe gateway effect could lead to this as well. I'm not convinced of this, but perhaps is something for further discussion.

[InfiniteNow]

I pity the person who dares disagree with you on these assertions.

As well you should. :)

 

 

...there is the one where I am saying same-sex marriages would be gateway to other types of marriage. Really, there are very few examples I can think of that I believe would perhaps never be permissible by society. My point isn't that gateway is bad or wrong. The point is that with sense of entitlement that we have with (traditional) marriage unions, I think further forms of marriage could drain the system.

Quickly, this is what's known as the "slippery slope" fallacy, and for that reason alone could be safely dismissed as an argument against same sex marriage.

 

However, accepting it as a valid concern (which, I do), it's pretty important to your point to start said "slippery slope" at the correct precipice. Your argument, in fact, does not begin with gay marriage, but instead begins with state recognized marriage of any sort... even marriages among two opposite sex partners.

 

The simple fact is, the state IS involved in marriage, and it DOES already confer privileges and benefits as a result of those marriages. That's where your argument should focus if you wish to argue on the "drain the system" bandwagon... When you instead decide to launch your "drain the system" argument from the idea that we should allow same sex partners equal protection under our laws as opposite sex couples... you weaken the foundation on which your argument rests, and do yourself a great disservice since you are beginning with a faulty premise.

 

 

The challenge, of course, with arguing that the government should not have its hand in marriage is the difficulties which arise with the implied contracts of a marriage. In simple terms, without some sort of a notarized agreement or written contract, there are a multitude of questions which would arise and be sent to the courts... questions for which we need a consistent framework to provide adequate answers. As an example, if there is no preexisting written contract when a father and mother divorce, how shall rulings be made about their offspring? Or, let's say that one of the partners in the relationship dies, or goes on military leave... Without the implied contract of a marriage, how do we handle the legal issues, and the responsibility for bills unless we have... up front... some sort of official written contract between the spouses (written contracts which I postulate would almost never actually exist)? Government plays such a role in marriage because we need a consistent framework in our laws on which to base decisions about things like money, ownership, and debt responsibility.

 

Either way... your argument about slippery slopes and limited resources needs to start at the right place... and that place has nothing to do with gay marriage. It instead has everything to do with governmental involvement in marriage at all... For which good arguments can be put forth either for or against.

[InfiniteNow]

I thought this was interesting:

 

 

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study - Telegraph

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

 

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

 

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

 

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

 

A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.

 

Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.

 

He said same homosexual behaviour was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.

 

Dr Bailey said: "It's clear same-sex sexual behaviour extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies.

 

"Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said.

 

"But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

[Jway]

I'll take that as IN's version of "showing a brother a little love."

 

Earlier (somewhere in this universe) I believe I stated that the slippery slope starts with marriage of any sort. Thus, I would argue if we allow for gay marriage, which I favor, we now disallow for any (or at least some) entitlements. I think for case I am making, it would be mainly the entitlements that carry discriminatory tax benefits and social security (added) benefits. There may be more than this. I say get marriage out of that 'business' but allow people to form private contracts that deal with issues that are based on their union as if state is not directly involved.

 

Now someone could counter with why start this with marriage, and why not push for it in hetero marriage now? I think that is fair question, but it really is gateway thing I am looking at. If same sex marriages got same tax benefits, I think we as a society will be okay. Though perhaps not, but I think so. It's the polygamous marriages and perhaps other forms that I could see really testing things. I'm not worried about this, and if it happened, I'd probably grab the popcorn and watch with bit of glee. Just something to consider while we do move forward with concept of marriage as social event.

[Boerseun]

I think we've conclusively shown homosexuality to be natural.

 

Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish.

 

Marriage used to be a religious institution, but from the point of view of a secular state, a marriage is nothing more and nothing less than merely a civil union, and a device to ensure legal clarity to any offspring that the particular union might have. Nowhere does the concept demand a certain array of genitalia to be present.

 

Your revulsion to the concept springs from the fact that marriages traditionally have been between members of the opposite sex. And traditions change, it just takes a bit of time. But marriage is a civil union, and does not require any deity to bless it or approve of it. Consider it a "pooling of resources" between two individuals in the struggle for survival.

[Larv]

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]

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.

 

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]

...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]

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).

 

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.:hihi:

 

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]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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. :hihi:

[Jway]

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.:hihi:

 

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 :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]

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]

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.