South Africa more progressive than U.S.

[pldennison]

4. You’ve confirmed the argument that you considered nonsense – the government would have to lessen the benefit for the increased pool of married, kid having couples.

Uh, clearly, no. I stated several options which the government might have, one of which would be to reduce the size of the deduction for dependent children. The existence of other options quite obviously means that they would not, in fact, have to choose any particular one of them.

. . . not “let’s get rid of all non-procreative marriages,” or whatever the strawman catch of the day is.

Hey, you brought it up, when you stated that “And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.)” and “Once again, we sacrifice as a society to give benefits to the married pool” because of “one of the obvious functions of marriage (wow, having kids).” You’re the one conflating the benefits we confer upon parents – single, married, or otherwise – with the benefits that accrue as a result of marriage. If there’s a strawman there, you built it.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Uh, clearly, no. I stated several options which the government might have, one of which would be to reduce the size of the deduction for dependent children. The existence of other options quite obviously means that they would not, in fact, have to choose any particular one of them.

I agree with you that the government has choices about how to cover the shortfall. However, the government does have to choose one of them. Another way of saying it is “somebody pays.”

You’re the one conflating the benefits we confer upon parents – single, married, or otherwise – with the benefits that accrue as a result of marriage. If there’s a strawman there, you built it.

You’re quite right; I stated that hyperbolically. Try this: Society has several classes that it deems beneficial, and that the rest of us pay to elevate:

A. Marriages, Unions: Stable couples lead to a stable country.
B. Parents: Promoting procreation
C. Married Parents: Stable procreation and genetic continuance of same.

We sacrifice for each of these classes, and Class C, gets the most benefits of all, being the union between the two. Each of these classes in beneficial, but there are benefits (legal and social) accrued to just Class C., which has been my consistent point. The strawman of conflation has been yours & Homebrew’s, I’m afraid.

In any event, are we arguing at this point that benefits don’t exist to married parents? Or are we arguing about what class of social benefit gay unions should be under? There are interesting points to discuss on both, I think…

[MrVisible]

So, Ace, would I belong to Class C if I married my boyfriend and we adopted a child?

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Ace0Spades *
**You just agreed with me that marriage has something to do with procreation – that’s the converse of “most of which have nothing” – yet you want all the benefits! **

You are trying to obfuscate. I never said that procreation is not one of the myriad of reasons people get married. Nor did I say it wasn’t a useful reason.

My argument is that procreation is not the only reason for marriage. Infertile straight couples are allowed to marry. Straight couples that chose not to have children and use birth control methods are allowed to marry. Our society allows these marriages and provides certain benefits to them that are unrelated to children. These benefits are what I want available to me and other same-sex couples. Therefore, I conclude that disallowing marriages of same-sex couples and denying these benefits using the arguement that they can’t reproduce is dishonest and is based on bigotry.

Why shouldn’t childless gay couples be eligible to receive the same benefits that childless straight couple who marry receive?
Captain Amazing presented three arguments that could be used against allowing gay marriages. I’ve given my response to all three. The only reply you or The Ryan have provided is that

And the society wants kids, not infertile couples (of any stripe.) Or didn’t you notice kids were a tax deduction?

Which is essentially reiterating the argument that marriage is for procreation. Repeating your premise without providing support or addressing my rebutal doesn’t count as debating.

I already get the benefits society gives for having children (tax break for my dependent). If I chose to settle down with someone, then I want to be able to enjoy the additional benefits given to married, childless, straight couples. Or else eliminate those benefits also. To do otherwise is discrimination based on bigotry.

If I were allowed to marry another man, I already have a child, so therefore I would be in your Category C. However, you prevent me from getting married and thus deny me the benefits you provide to others. That is discrimination. That is bigotry.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Captain Amazing gave, I thought, very civil answers – I thought you rather gave him the rhetorical back of your hand with the “outdated and asinine” comment. But I’m glad the debate seems back on track – mostly.

First, there are many more social benefits than the contractual sphere, as I’ve mentioned two posts back. Tax benefits are merely one component. Another would be working late at the office, or taking dangerous jobs – the social sacrifice theory would have these allocated disproportianetly to the single, childless individuals.

Secondly, I am distinguishing between your admittedly valid complaints that marriage is not only a vessel to raise children, between that and raising/siring children being a component of marriage. AFAIK, we’re actually in agreement here.

Thirdly, I do absolutely agree that non-siring hetero couples should have equal social benefits to non-siring homo couples. However, the remedy may not be to elevate the latter category.

Adoption, of course, is a social good – though not of the class of siring children who will replicate your success with finding a mate, stability, and living long enough for this success to materialize. Siring children of your own genetic stock, is in itself, a social good.

Let’s flesh out the classes with this:

A. Single
B. Single, parent
C. Union, infertile, no child
D. Union, fertile, no child
E. Union, adopted child
F. Union, sired child

Whether or not you agree with this, I contend it’s an accurate representation of our internalized social good spectrum. The social sacrifice pool trickles downwards, here. I note that gay couples can obtain Class C and Class E status, thereby passing hetero couples in Class D, lesbians may gain the entire spectrum.

This would argue that discrimination against lesbians on the basis of marriage/union is bigotry, though discrimination against gays is not.

Here’s another clarifying question for those still stuck on tax deductions as the final arbitrer of social good. Rather, you should consider who would you place on the lifeboats first? I think, rather naturally, if we had one of each of the class on the ship, we would self-organize the rescue from Class F -to- Class A.

I realize these are all tough questions – thanks in advance to the board for allowing us this venue.

[Homebrew]

This would argue that discrimination against lesbians on the basis of marriage/union is bigotry, though discrimination against gays is not.

I am a gay man. I have a son. Therefore would qualify for Category F if I were allowed to marry. However you then go on to say that I shouldn’t be allowed to marry and that is not bigotry. How so?

Another would be working late at the office, or taking dangerous jobs – the social sacrifice theory would have these allocated disproportianetly to the single, childless individuals.

Please support this with factual data. My father was a pipefitter, a somewhat dangerous job. I know firefighters and police officers who are parents. Many miners are parents (Coal Miner’s Daughter was a true story, ya know). Truckdrivers are often dads. Real life doesn’t support this statement.

On what basis is adoption inferior to natural child-birth? We’re in no danger of extinction because of low birth-rates. I don’t understand why we as a society need to provide incentitives to producing more children.

Your classification system is bunk.

If the goal is to encourage committed, stable families, how is preventing homosexuals to form such legally recognized families productive?

[MrVisible]

I am amazed, as always, at the mental gymnastics required to support bigotry.

What makes adoption inferior to making babies for yourself? It seems to me that taking responsibility for a child that has no-one else to support them, and caring for them for a lifetime, is actually an unparalelled act of generosity. Not to mention the fact that they’re not adding to the population problem by doing so.

As to your argument that your own kid will be as successful as you are… BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I’m guessing you’ve never met a decent person with monstrous parents, or a good pair of people whose kids turn out rotten. Genetics is a crapshoot, and whether you’re playing with your own dice or someone else’s, you have no way to know how things are going to come out.

What if my boyfriend and I choose to adopt a special-needs child? Should we be penalized because the kid’s genetic stock is inferior?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Miller *
Great lengths? Homebrew says (in effect) “Not allowing same sex marriage is bigotry.” Your reply? “No, it’s not.” How is this in anyway helpful towards creating a constructive debate?

Shouldn’t you be asking Homebrew that?

How is adding one sentence to clarify why you don’t think it’s bigotry a “great inconvenience” to you?

What part of “don’t misrepresent my position” does you not understand?

Hardly an effective comparison,

Gee, presenting opinion as fact again?

because having Colin Powell as president of the US is going to have an enormous impact on the daily lives of every citizen in the country, and a significant impact on the lives of people around the globe. Gay marriage will have no impact on the lives of anyone except the couple in question. So it seems to me that denying marriage to gay couples is done purely out of spite.

My analogy was not meant to establish that it is not bigotry, but to establish that people can do something non-bigoted out of bigoted motives.

See, you’ve completely missed the point of my “context” argument. Apparently, I should have been clearer. You’re entering a debate about gay marriage, which is a highly emotional topic. You are adressing a gay man, who is going to be more emotionally involved in the topic than normal, because it directly affects him. And you are taking up a position contrary to him, albiet on a minor side issue, the precise definition of “bigot.”

Why not preface your remarks with a few disclaimers? “I have nothing against the idea of gay marriage, but technically, I don’t think it is bigotry.”

I resent the implication that I am resposnsible for other people’s irrational jumping to conclusions. Sure, sometimes I include disclaimers. But that’s my choice. I shouldn’t be obligated to include disclaimers.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Sorry for the late replies – I had to escape the baked apple for the weekend and truck down to Long Beach for a little volleyball. Anyhow, suitably refreshed, back into the jungle…

initially by HomebrewOn what basis is adoption inferior to natural child-birth? We’re in no danger of extinction because of low birth-rates. I don’t understand why we as a society need to provide incentitives to producing more children.

It is on the basis of genetic lineage that we discriminate against homosexual couples – we do indeed value permanent social bonds (like gay unions), and we do this for two reasons, not the mere one you described in your post, the first of which that it is stable and conducive to a stable, forward looking society, and the second that their genetic offspring (born of natural selection, that), will in all likelyhood be more able to recreate the parent’s success.

It’s all natural selection, and the view is on quite solid grounds. Further, it’s pretty damn common. Marriages still break up on the grounds of infertility – and hospitals still are sued for babies switched at birth, both rather obvious social valuation of genetic offspring. Or we could just say “it’s natural selection,” but I’d hate to be accused of button-pushing.

Whether these are “mental gymnastics” is irrelevant. The questions was, “Is there a view consistent with gay discrimination is not bigotry.” And my answer, and to some extent, Captain Amazing’s answer, which your arguments leave untouched, is that yes, there is easily such a view.

That might upset you due to your personal ties to the matter, but that doesn’t affect the soundness of the argument, and it’s not my intention in any event.

As a side note, Mr. Visible your swipe was both peevish and incorrect. Bigotry does not usually involve “mental gymnastics,” to my experience – more like “Ick,” or “So says the bible.” I believe you’ll find that in the definition of the word.

[Homebrew]

My arguements do not leave the objections untouched. I addressed each of the arguements. Ignoring my points does not make them go away.

we do indeed value permanent social bonds (like gay unions

Well, Vermont, Canada and a few European nations do. But I fail to see how DOMA is consistent with your statement.

[MrVisible]

You’re right, Ace. Crediting bigots with the ability to do mental gymnastics is pretty charitable on my part.

Care to address the rest of my post, or would you like to harp on that phrase some more?

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Mr. Visible, I’d like to harp, harp on that phrase some more.

No, OK. I addressed your post above, but I’m happy to expand upon what I said for you, as it’s a tough, and interesting question. As I’ve said – natural selection and genetic offspring is one of the two pillars of a stable society, the other being a stable parenting unit. Where does adoption fit in? Adopting children is an admittedly saintly thing from an individual perspective – you’re taking care of a child who otherwise might be parentless – or in the case of a special-needs child, you’re providing that child with life-altering love and parenting. You may be saving a childs life, and in any event, he’ll grow up to be a better citizen than before.

However, from a social sacrifice perspective, you’ve sacrificed your successful genes to raise less-than-successful genes. For all you know, you might be taking your years of education, and parenting skills, and investing it into an adoptee who cannot replicate your success. The certainty is overall regression to the mean. If everyone were to adopt, you would reverse, or at best, stagnate Galton’s Law – natural preference for the intelligent, beautiful, and tall – basically all preferential mating characteristics, and would stagnate human advancement of those traits. If we’d all switched to adoption in the 18th century, we’d all be much shorter and stupider, wiping out many scientific gains along the way. Sharing a resource instead of natural competition for it is a saintly individual behavior, but a destructive societal one.

To restate; raising an adoptee passes on your nurture but not your nature. This is why it’s a secondary solution for many marriages and why it is a secondary solution for society.*

I hope I’ve answered all points that weren’t ad hominem or appeals to ignorance. Please let me know if I’ve missed any.
*If you prefer, you may substitute the word “inferior” – you’ll notice I don’t have much stock in the PC sensibilities, nor much anywhere else with this market…

[pldennison]

However, from a social sacrifice perspective, you’ve sacrificed your successful genes to raise less-than-successful genes. For all you know, you might be taking your years of education, and parenting skills, and investing it into an adoptee who cannot replicate your success.

A strong case can be made that the exact opposite is true. After all, if I have not reproduced, then I don’t think it can be argued that I have “successful genes.” My parents’ genes were successful, for certain, but if I don’t reproduce, I’ve been the opposite of successful – I’m a genetic dead end.

Meanwhile, the natural parents of the adopted offpsring do have “successful genes”; they successfully produced, and nature, for its part, no longer is much interested in what they do. The offpsring’s genes are “unsuccessful” if the offpsring fails to live to reproductive age, but after that, as long as he or she reproduces, the genes win.

Your post sounds like it has less to do with successful or unsuccessful genes, per se, than it does a sort of modified Social Darwinism which assumes that taller, more beautiful, more intelligent humans are worthwhile goals in and of themselves. Not only is that not a good prima facie argument, it isn’t even established that the three things are in any way related.

[Homebrew]

However, from a social sacrifice perspective, you’ve sacrificed your successful genes to raise less-than-successful genes. For all you know, you might be taking your years of education, and parenting skills, and investing it into an adoptee who cannot replicate your success. The certainty is overall regression to the mean. If everyone were to adopt, you would reverse, or at best, stagnate Galton’s Law – natural preference for the intelligent, beautiful, and tall – basically all preferential mating characteristics, and would stagnate human advancement of those traits. If we’d all switched to adoption in the 18th century, we’d all be much shorter and stupider, wiping out many scientific gains along the way. Sharing a resource instead of natural competition for it is a saintly individual behavior, but a destructive societal one.

Prof. Rushton is that you?

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
A strong case can be made that the exact opposite is true.

Huh? Er, no. You are indeed a genetic dead-end (currently) – but that isn’t the opposite case, that’s the complementary case, PLD! You need to both have a child and raise a child to utilize both your nature and your nurture. The donor parents are able to do one. The non-procreative recipient parents are able to do the other. Doing them both together is preferable.

I’m not sure exactly what’s meant by “Modified Social Darwinism” or by “Eugenics.” Are you saying you don’t think people pick mates by qualities such as height and intelligence, or are you saying you don’t think the evolution of intelligence is a good thing, and you’d rather be swinging from trees? Maybe you don’t believe in evolution?

Oh, and Homebrew, I found a Univeristy of Western Ontario professor with something to say about Rushton. Here are my favorite graphs:

When science ignores facts in favor of ideology – whether the ideology is racism or egalitarian “anti-racism” – it ceases to be science and becomes propaganda for a dogma.
If Rushton is wrong, calling his work “racist” will not prove it to be wrong. If he is right, calling the truth “racist” will not change it. Thus the charge of “racism” has no proper place in scientific debate.

Homebrew, consider whether you’re interested in the truth or simply advancing your agenda… you seem to vacillate between cogency and lazy snipes, which makes me listen to your arguments a little less well than I perhaps should.
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/updates/hilborn_backs_rushton.html

[MrVisible]

You need to both have a child and raise a child to utilize both your nature and your nurture. The donor parents are able to do one. The non-procreative recipient parents are able to do the other. Doing them both together is preferable.

Why is it preferable?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Ace0Spades *
You are indeed a genetic dead-end (currently) – but that isn’t the opposite case, that’s the complementary case, PLD! You need to both have a child and raise a child to utilize both your nature and your nurture. The donor parents are able to do one. The non-procreative recipient parents are able to do the other. Doing them both together is preferable.

Either I’m even dumber than I think or you’re introducing concepts that are leading us far astray, but . . . you appear to be under some misimpressions about what constitutes “successful genes.” Success, from a genetic standpoint, has nothing to do with any of the things you seem to think it does – success, as far as your genes are concerned, means nothing more than contributing DNA to at least one offspring that survives to sexual maturity. Everything else that you seem to be grouping under the heading of “replicating success” is gravy.

I’m not sure exactly what’s meant by “Modified Social Darwinism” or by "Eugenics."

I find that hard to believe, but feel free to Google them.

** Are you saying you don’t think people pick mates by qualities such as height and intelligence, or are you saying you don’t think the evolution of intelligence is a good thing,**

No, I’m saying that we aren’t about to introduce some strain of superintelligent human beings through selective breeding, because that isn’t how it works. Evolution works on individuals, not on species. Human intelligence is the result of selective pressures that simply don’t exist anymore.

What does any of this have to do with homosexuals getting married, anyway?

[Miller]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Shouldn’t you be asking Homebrew that?

I don’t need to. The premises behind his conclusion are self-evident. You’re the one making the claim that denying one class of people the same priveledges as another class with absoulutely no valid reason is somehow not bigotry. And I still don’t understand the reasoning behind it, after two pages of debate.

What part of “don’t misrepresent my position” does you not understand?

That’d be the part where you clearly stated and supported your position.

Gee, presenting opinion as fact again?

Rhetorical device. Live with it.

My analogy was not meant to establish that it is not bigotry, but to establish that people can do something non-bigoted out of bigoted motives.

Which you failed to do, thereby supporting my claim that your analogy is invalid. Can you show how someone can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot? Hopefully, you’ll have a better showing than Ace has so far.

I resent the implication that I am resposnsible for other people’s irrational jumping to conclusions. Sure, sometimes I include disclaimers. But that’s my choice. I shouldn’t be obligated to include disclaimers.

Obligated? I never said you were obligated. I was merely giving you some debating advice, of which you seemed sorely in need. Feel free to ignore it. I’m not the one who’s going to end up looking like an asshole because I can’t coherently state my position on controversial subjects.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**

Either I’m even dumber than I think or you’re introducing concepts that are leading us far astray, but . . . you appear to be under some misimpressions about what constitutes “successful genes.”

I’m amused that you think I’m confused about my own definitions. We were talking about social stability, remember? Stable couple with genetic offspring reproducing to produce yet another generation of stable couples. That’s a legitimate, rational reason to discriminate against non-procreative couples.

quote:

I’m not sure exactly what’s meant by “Modified Social Darwinism” or by “Eugenics.”

I find that hard to believe, but feel free to Google them.

Here you are being thick. I asked for what you meant by it. Not the definition of the terms. Social Darwinism – perhaps. What’s the Modification?

No, I’m saying that we aren’t about to introduce some strain of superintelligent human beings through selective breeding,

And who is “we” or “introduce” or “strain?” What on gods green earth are you talking about? We’re describing the human condition currently, remember?

Evolution works on individuals, not on species. Human intelligence is the result of selective pressures that simply don’t exist anymore.

Evolution doesn’t work on species? People no longer self-select for height and intelligence? PLD smokes what?

What does any of this have to do with homosexuals getting married, anyway?

Ya can’t even be bothered to follow this, can ya? Quit stirring the pot!

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

*Originally posted by Miller *
I don’t need to. The premises behind his conclusion are self-evident. You’re the one making the claim that denying one class of people the same priveledges as another class with absoulutely no valid reason is somehow not bigotry. And I still don’t understand the reasoning behind it, after two pages of debate.

I’m utterly fantastically surprised that you couldn’t understand the reasoning behind a claim that has absolutely no valid reasons. Congratulations for making a misstatement, a logical error and two typos in the space of a sentence and a half.

In the event that you actually wanted insight into the correct claim, (which I note is explicitly not the one you state) as opposed to the backhand slam, you know where to post.

Mr. Visible we’ve been down this road before, but I’ll state it one last time.

To maximize your chances of replicating successful couples, a social good, you need that couple to pass on:

1. Their genes and
2. Their upbringing

Either is good but both is best.

Now, I’m off for some absinthe. Till the morrow.