Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Goat]

Not true. Prior to your shifting of the discussion from this approach to the use of anecdotal arguments, we had narrowed the scope of marrage protection based on the care of children to parents. I was then propared to examine what qualifies one as a parent.

1. Examine away.
2. That is emphatically not the only purpose of marriage. One purpose, not the only purpose, is to support the stability of the family to facilitate raising children.

Yes, I acknowledged that you had five purposes for government recognized marrage. Our disagreement over whether the government regulating marrage reduces civil liberties as a trade off for a certain degree of stability was not resolved. So, for the moment, maybe we should lay that aside in order to focus on the second purpose, which has yeilded agreement on the fact that it is a limited purpose. That is to facilitate the raising of children, which is limited to the parents of those children. See, it is not a case of aimless rambling and nothing being said. When one keeps ones focus on establishing a systematic method of examining an issue, one can then recall the progress.

Why should that matter? Does that mean you want to make marriages illegal between people who are not of child bearing years? Or, people who are sterile?
Or people who just don't want kids of their own, but want to adopt?

Sorry, but that argument is one big straw man, and totally irrelevant.

[Autodidact]

One of the purposes of our form of government is to treat its citizens equally. That purpose is reflected in teh 14th amendment to our constitution. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who oppose same-sex marriage to explain who permitting it frustrates governmental purposes, not the other way around.

[Angel]

One of the purposes of our form of government is to treat its citizens equally. That purpose is reflected in teh 14th amendment to our constitution. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who oppose same-sex marriage to explain who permitting it frustrates governmental purposes, not the other way around.

I agree.

-------------------------
Bluethread,
So you believe legalizing same-sex marriage would cause legal harm, although that may not take into account that new laws can be created and existing ones modified to fix or accomodate. What real harm, physical or emotional, would gay marriage cause?

[bluethread]

Well, that is an odd case. However, in the case of Jaycee Dugard, in fact she did regard her kidnapper as her father, and his accomplice as her mother. I don't think it's a positive example, but they were serving in a parental role, however negative, yes. (Read her book recently.)

However, I think you will agree this is an odd case. Are you trying to tell me that I am not in fact the mother of my children? Because that isn't going to go down very well with me or them.

Yes, that is an odd case. But in establishing legal status it is the odd cases that drive the legislation. So, you do believe that kidnappers should be legally recognized as the father and mother, if the child perceives them as such? I have said nor suggested anything about you. You refering to yourself as "the mother of my children" prejudices any determination that one might make without providing any description of the relationship. Whether you are the mother of the children you refer to is dependant upon determining how parenthood is or should be legallyrecognized. THis latter is what we are trying to determine. At this point, it appears the perceptions of the child seem to trump even the fact tht custody was the result of a fellonious act. I hope we are a ways away from excluding you at this point.

[bluethread]

Yes, I acknowledged that you had five purposes for government recognized marrage. Our disagreement over whether the government regulating marrage reduces civil liberties as a trade off for a certain degree of stability was not resolved. So, for the moment, maybe we should lay that aside in order to focus on the second purpose, which has yeilded agreement on the fact that it is a limited purpose. That is to facilitate the raising of children, which is limited to the parents of those children. See, it is not a case of aimless rambling and nothing being said. When one keeps ones focus on establishing a systematic method of examining an issue, one can then recall the progress.

Why should that matter? Does that mean you want to make marriages illegal between people who are not of child bearing years? Or, people who are sterile?
Or people who just don't want kids of their own, but want to adopt?

Sorry, but that argument is one big straw man, and totally irrelevant.

Well, as the post states this is one of several purposes autodidact presented. We are examining each to see which purposes are justified, which are not and who should be permitted to marry based on each. Currently we are examining who should be permitted to marry based on the purpose of providing for children.

Regarding you specific examples, we have not yet gotten to age, sterility and adoption. Autodidact has not even clearly excluded people who aquire children through felonious acts. So, those examples have yet to be exclude under this purpose, let alone excluded under other possible justifed purposes.

[bluethread]

One of the purposes of our form of government is to treat its citizens equally. That purpose is reflected in teh 14th amendment to our constitution. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who oppose same-sex marriage to explain who permitting it frustrates governmental purposes, not the other way around.

Yes, that is what we are trying to determine. We can take a dart board approach and bring up points here and there on hopes that we can determine where the line between those who should be allowed to have governementally recognized marrage and who should not lie. However, I think it more productive to draw a line and move it one way or the other to determine where it should be. Having failed in my attemptes to identify where that line is currently, apart from it not including homosexual marrage, I have asked you to tell me where that line is based on the various purposes you have presented. Currently, it is not even clear whether you would permit felonious kidnappers to marry based on having "parented" their victims.

[bluethread]

Bluethread,
So you believe legalizing same-sex marriage would cause legal harm, although that may not take into account that new laws can be created and existing ones modified to fix or accomodate. What real harm, physical or emotional, would gay marriage cause?

Where did I say that? I am trying to determine why governments should recognize marrage, in order to see if it is necessary to include homosexuals based on those purposes. It appears many people here want me to presume that homosexuals should be granted government recognized marrage and then prove that is not correct. I am doing you one better. I have accepted autodidact's suggestion that all persons whom children consider to be parents should be granted government regulated marriage. We are now in the process of determining if that is a proper standard. Do you believe that kidnappers should be permitted to marry based on their being seen by their victims as parents? Honestly, I would have thought that this exclusion would have been a slam dunk. But, I am willing to take the time to entertain the views of those who may not find this to be a clear exclusion.

[Curious]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

If two people want to tie themselves together then I don't see how anybody has the right to say they shouldn't. I do find it strange though that most gay proponents of gay marriage tend to forego the whole "forsaking all others" part of it. I am a heterosexual man who has never really bought into the whole marriage thing. I have a partner and we have kids which bind us. Gay men are mainly a promiscuous bunch. Why would a gay, who is by definition "abnormal", want their relationship "normalised"?

[Autodidact]

Well, that is an odd case. However, in the case of Jaycee Dugard, in fact she did regard her kidnapper as her father, and his accomplice as her mother. I don't think it's a positive example, but they were serving in a parental role, however negative, yes. (Read her book recently.)

However, I think you will agree this is an odd case. Are you trying to tell me that I am not in fact the mother of my children? Because that isn't going to go down very well with me or them.

Yes, that is an odd case. But in establishing legal status it is the odd cases that drive the legislation. So, you do believe that kidnappers should be legally recognized as the father and mother, if the child perceives them as such?

Obviously not, since their only relationship from the child derives from a crime that deprived the child's actual parents. Are you trying to equate same-sex parents with kidnappers? If not, why did you bring them up?

I have said nor suggested anything about you. You refering to yourself as "the mother of my children" prejudices any determination that one might make without providing any description of the relationship. Whether you are the mother of the children you refer to is dependant upon determining how parenthood is or should be legallyrecognized

. I don't need you to tell me whether or not I am my children's mother, and am frankly offended by your implication that the question is subject to your opinion in any way.

THis latter is what we are trying to determine. At this point, it appears the perceptions of the child seem to trump even the fact tht custody was the result of a fellonious act. I hope we are a ways away from excluding you at this point.

Not we, you. You are trying to determine it. Please don't drag me into your bizarre semiotics.

There will always be bizarre outliers. I think we can agree that criminal theft of a child provides an exception to the rule.

Andrea Yates killed five of her children born during her heterosexual marriage. Marie Noe smothered at least 8 of hers, Susan Smith two. MaryBeth Tinning smothered at least four of hers. Christian Longo, John Emil List and many other men killed their entire families. Dramatically, recognizing these marriages and parental relationships did not benefit the child or the nation. When the state finds that parents are harming their children, it takes them away. This is the exception, not the rule, and does not mean that they are not parents, or that the state does not want to protect the parental relationship. Bradley Coe's biological parents won a custody fight against his foster parents, then killed him by shoving his head in a toilet. It would have been better for Bradley to stay with his psychological parents, but the state recognized the biological relationship. We don't want to promote murder, but we find that in general, for valid reasons, we do want to protect the parent-child relationship.

So in general, I don't think the rare murderer or kidnapper is a good basis to use as an example, do you?

Here's what you don't find: lesbians killed their children. Why? Because they went to a lot of trouble to get them. Children of same-sex parents are wanted children. And that turns out to be a significant factor in favor of good parenting. The state wants to promote good parenting. Same-sex parents provide it. Therefore it serves a valid purpose to support same-sex parents.

That is why every national adoption organization supports same-sex parenting. They're not gay-rights groups; they're child welfare organizations, and they say same-sex parenting is good for kids.

And don't forget, as you keep doing, that equality is an important state interest here in the U.S. It is incumbent on those who oppose same-sex marriage to find a valid reason to deny this right to same-sex couples, with or without children.

Are you one of those people?

[Autodidact]

Where did I say that? I am trying to determine why governments should recognize marrage, in order to see if it is necessary to include homosexuals based on those purposes. It appears many people here want me to presume that homosexuals should be granted government recognized marrage and then prove that is not correct. I am doing you one better.

Yes, that is a governmental purpose here in the U.S. It is incumbent on opponents of equality to provide a compelling reason to deny it.

I have accepted autodidact's suggestion that all persons whom children consider to be parents should be granted government regulated marriage. We are now in the process of determining if that is a proper standard. Do you believe that kidnappers should be permitted to marry based on their being seen by their victims as parents? Honestly, I would have thought that this exclusion would have been a slam dunk. But, I am willing to take the time to entertain the views of those who may not find this to be a clear exclusion.

I didn't say anything about what the child considers, let alone all. If you're going to falsely allege that I suggested this rabbit hole, at least quote me correctly. What I said is, people who are raising children are parents. By the way, Jaycee Dugard's kidnappers were married. Are you suggesting that they should not allowed to be married?

The question is, what on earth does this bizarre excursion have to do with the subject at hand?

Do you think it would harm the state to permit same-sex couples to marry? That is the only relevant question. If so, how?