This not true. No such studies exist. What studies have shown is that children benefit from being raised in a stable environment by two parents. Wether the parents are married, or what gender they happen to be, has been repeatedly shown to be irrelevent in the development of the child.
In the hopes of drawing a response from you, here is a picture of a fluffy dog.
Taking bets?*
** will fail to answer directly, and offer some diversionary rationalization – now bringing 3 to 1*
Well I’d say this is part of the accepted leftist victimology doctrine, and probably an interesting discussion to be had, but this might not be the place for it. Generally I think that victimology has become an almost status seeking behavior where people try to capitalize on the shame over past transgressions. That’s why it’s important to say that the ‘reasoning’ behind it is the same. These sorts of arguments of intent are extremely hard to refute because really none of us knows precisely what the intent is. Often I see so many arguments on this board devolve into uncomprehending groupthink where the term bigot comes out to kill the thread by denying any validity in the opposing viewpoint, where bigot becomes all that the victim’s side needs to know about the opposing viewpoint in order to dismiss it. Of course I have hijacked many threads with this line of reasoning and have found little in terms of reasonable argument in response, so its rather a fruitless endeavor most of the time.
Whenever we settle on a status quo there will always be a group that comes out on the wrong side of it and feels like a victim because they are dissatisfied with the outcome. Sometimes it’s not a matter of right and wrong.
My favorite bible quote is Pontius Pilate right before he condemns Jesus by washing his hands. “What is truth?”, contained in this simple question is the fundamental problem of politics, it’s not about determining what is right, but about what is functional. Both sides of the gay marriage debate believes their side has the moral authority. I don’t think moral authority is even a factor, it’s just a matter of functionality. Freedom used to be about ownership of one person by another. We have long since passed that and now within a Democratic framework have entered into a state of collective ownership where we all have a stake in each other’s behavior. I personally don’t think fighting gay marriage is a worthwhile endeavor. Some people want it, and I see it as pretty costless to society. The real damage that is occurring is in the terms of the debate where people are dismissing the value of the nuclear family as a result. That’s really what disturbs me, this encroaching trend among the left to have a derision for the traditional family. It’s unfortunate that our bipartisan system has resulted in the debate being framed in this fashion, but it has.
I disagree that the counter arguments are entirely irrational.
The rationale behind one law is “functionally identical” to the reasoning behind another—huh? What?! That just means that the results are similar; that one group is barred from X and one group is barred from Y. That’s the functional aspect of a law. You know this. Yet, you couch your argument so it implies that there is the same amount of hate behind those laws. For you, not supporting SSM necessitates hatred of gays. Or that is the ultimate conclusion one must draw from your statement above.
I’d argue that the importance in pointing out that the reasoning is the same is to highlight a situation in which the person putting forward an argument has already rejected a similar argument.
Does that difficulty cut both ways? It does not seem to, when you speak so certainly about a “leftist victimology doctrine.”
It has become impossible to succeed in this debate by arguing that same sex marriage produces some societal harm. Far too much evidence to the contrary now exists.
(I do not say that it has not or will not be argued. I say that it cannot succeed.)
So instead it is being argued that “failure to provide substantial separate benefit” should be treated the same as “produces harm”.
This fails first on logical grounds, as the two cannot be equivalent.
It also fails on analysis, since the bonds of marriage, if applied to same sex partners, would at least some times smooth otherwise contentious issues related to death, breakup, and other matters previously noted. This removal of uncertainty and acrimony surely benefits the society in which said death or breakup takes place. Requiring a demonstration of some minimum number of affected individuals before this concept should be actionable is not in line with constitutional protections for minorities, even minorities of one or two.
The separate argument that it is somehow all about making babies is silly. Every psychologist, every marriage counselor, and half the threads in MPSIMS declare that the partners in a marriage, and the committment of the relationship between them, supercedes their relationship to their own children (if any). For without that committed relationship between the married couple, there can be no stability of relationship for any children. This applies whether the couple is homo- or heterosexual.
In short, while there are endless rationalizations, there are in fact zero rational arguments against allowing same sex marriage under law in the US.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a right. Marriage between a man and a tractor is not a right. The discussion is IF a man has the right to marry another man. And a Civil Union that had ALL the rights and benefits attached to it that married couples enjoy would not be merely a paliative. It would be a solution that affords them all the rights they want. Calling that a paliative is admitting that equal rights are not the thing you’re after. Sure you want the rights, but you want to use “marriage” as a label to imply a normalcy that people know is not there. To be clear to others who do not know my position as well as you do, I’m not saying that homosexuality is not naturally occurring.
Actually, from my post the only thing I was pointing out (“demanding”?) was that jayjay omitted a crucial middle ground. That is a fact. You even acknowledge it as a middle ground. And once it is acknowledged, his, and your, argument is reduced to “our way is easier”. It may be. It may not be. But who decided that easy was the metric to be used? Or the ONLY metric? It is quite possible for your way to be, in fact, easier. It’s also possible for other considerations to override the ease metric. Not acknowledging that is simply not being honest.
The main point is that the existence of a middle ground, through which a loving gay couple CAN enjoy ALL the legal rights and benefits a married couple enjoys, reveals the “we want equal rights” argument to be hollow, false.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, or how it relates to my post.
Yea but you are accepting that it’s the same as though it’s axiomatic. At that point even the terms of the debate are up for debate. Miscommunication comes when both sides have base assumptions about what the argument is about that the other doesn’t share.
It cuts in every direction and that’s the problem with it. It creates ‘victim’ as a subgroup that one is meant to covet because it confers political power. All that is required is that your subgroup be large enough and have a coherent identity around a shared dissatisfaction.
If I get you right, you advocate a legal status between two individuals wherein they enjoy all rights and protections that a married couple does. Why not just call that “marriage?”
I think an even more interesting question is the inverse: if marriage had attached to it no legal rights or privileges, would gays be so hellbent on appropriating the word? Some would have you believe they wouldn’t—it’s all about equal rights. Other, the more honest, would say yes and then have to state their argument sans the red herring of “rights”.
Miller to clarify. When I talk about leftist victimology, I am not talking about intent but about arguments that have been made explicitly, like the idea that a term that someone finds offensive is de facto offensive and that we should all have compassion for the person who is being offended.
I was about to rewrite it, but I didn’t see how to improve on it. It seems quite clear. I’d ask you to reread it. If it helps, the point is that the functional outcome of two laws might be the same, they might result in the same things—functionally, i.e., you can’t do X. But that doesn’t mean that the thinking behind those laws share the same rationale, the same degree of hate.
This being true it’s perfectly obvious that married gays can and do have families and benefit society just as much, even if the method of having children varies from the norm. Other married couples already have this option and also vary from the norm. You have yet to present one single valid reason why gays should not have equal rights to marry.
Except the right to marriage.
No, it’s not. It’s admitting that it would be an improvement over having none of the rights, which no one has ever denied, but it’s not the same as having all of the rights. Which we won’t have, so long as there are separate legal institutions for straight people and gay people.
No, I want marriage because it is the quickest and most secure path to securing equality. I don’t care how other people think about my relationships, I care about how they treat them under the law. I’m not prepared to accept a legal solution that does not guarantee me exactly the same rights and protections that are afforded to straight couples, and I do not think your proposal will do that.
Who said it was the only metric? It also prevails under the “equal” metric, the “expense” metric, the “logic” metric, and the “moral” metric. If there are other metrics to consider, present them. Thus far in your history on this subject, you’ve been unable to mount a substantial argument against gay marriage, other than, “I don’t like it,” and, laughably, “It might destroy the country.” Which, I can tell you, did not do wonders for your insistance that it is possible to have a non-homophobic rationale for opposing gay marriage.
Except the right to marriage.
Devil’s advocate:
It’s not really quantifiable, it’s mostly subjectively based.
Say you’re a chair connoisseur. You enjoy everything about chairs, the history of them, and the way they’re made. You’ve read books on chairs, you run a forum on chair appreciation, you’ve spent years searching for the perfect chair. You obviously have a big emotional investment into chairs. In fact, when some hillbilly buys a chair from k-mart and throws it in the trash year later, you get a little pissed, but what can you do about it?
One day, someone else points at a desk and tells you “this is a chair”. Now you’ve got nothing against desks (desks can be just as nice as chairs!) but you’ve spent so much personal energy on chairs that you raise your eyebrow at the person’s suggestion. Seeing your reaction, the other person now demands that you call the desk a chair.
There’s obviously no harm to society by calling desks “chairs”. Its just a word after all. Maybe you can even grok the reasons why calling desks “chairs” (especially if they are nice desks) would be better for society as a whole. But still, after spending half your life devoted to chairs, it hurts a little. Is that quantifiable?
ETA- what **Miller **said.
Oh, and whatever is there about victimology that defines it as being somehow a leftist creation? And which part (the victimization, or the leftist origin) is the odious part? Or are they both? Just askin’.
I am referring to a particular ethos where every person outside the status quo is somehow a ‘victim’ of the status quo. I am not arguing that only leftists capitalize on victim status.
I am not. Note that I said it is sometimes relevant. Which necessarily implies that there are other times when it is not relevant.
And when I talk about parallels between anti-gay legislation and, say, Jim Crow legislation, I too am talking about arguments that have been explicitly made. Which, I suppose, renders your arguments about “leftist victimology doctrine” irrelevant.
Then why specifically label it as “leftist”?
