Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You've never heard of childbearing either, eh? I really don't know when to take your seriously or not. You say something silly and then get all serious and then back and forth.

Yes, Bob - clearly the logical conculsion from all of this is that I've never heard of childbearing. That's a windmill, not even a strawman.

Serious question, I promise:

Why do you think legalizing gay marriage would reduce childbearing?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Yes, Bob - clearly the logical conculsion from all of this is that I've never heard of childbearing. That's a windmill, not even a strawman.

Serious question, I promise:

Why do you think legalizing gay marriage would reduce childbearing?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

No, I don't think he was talking about neo-Nazis.

Progress!

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

No, that IS the question to ask. Flagdude postulated that we shouln't allow gay marriage because we need to think about "the creation of the future of the country." So now I'm asking why gay marriage would have anything to do with birth rates - a 100% relevant question to his assertion.

If society wanted to put extra "value" on childbearing, there are infinite possibilities for accomplishing that goal directly which are not mutually exclusive with gay marriage: increase child tax credits, mandate longer maternity leaves, provide more subsidized child care. Etc., etc. How would allowing gay marriage preclude us from doing any of those things to put extra value on childbearing?

 

[Priceless]

Progress!

If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

Bob, I've always liked reading your posts, but you seriously need to sit down and re-read this post, and whether it makes any logical sense.

Recognizing gay marriage in no way takes away the value that society as a whole may place on marriages that produce children. Not unless we assume there are some people out there who, without the recognition of gay marriage, would by default choose a hetero marriage (because they just really want to get married to someone?). Or unless we decided we're just going to force gays to enter into hetero marriages and have kids.

The impact of gay marriage recognition will be zero on the number of hetero marriages that occur.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob, I've always liked reading your posts, but you seriously need to sit down and re-read this post, and whether it makes any logical sense.

Recognizing gay marriage in no way takes away the value that society as a whole may place on marriages that produce children. Not unless we assume there are some people out there who, without the recognition of gay marriage, would by default choose a hetero marriage (because they just really want to get married to someone?). Or unless we decided we're just going to force gays to enter into hetero marriages and have kids.

The impact of gay marriage recognition will be zero on the number of hetero marriages that occur.

Really this is all part of a much larger conversation regarding the decline and deemphasis of the nuclear family. Mathwise, you're probably largely correct. But, this is just another brick in the wall of saying that the traditional family of two married parents with children has little or nothing special and valuable about it. This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation. And our society is reaping the negative consequences of this in spades. The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Really this is all part of a much larger conversation regarding the decline and deemphasis of the nuclear family. Mathwise, you're probably largely correct. But, this is just another brick in the wall of saying that the traditional family of two married parents with children has little or nothing special and valuable about it. This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation. And our society is reaping the negative consequences of this in spades. The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

How can you say on one hand that we should extol the virtues of a family with two married parrents and kids, and then on the other that we should deny that option to an entire segment of the population? According to this study by the UCLA law school, there are ~125,000 gay housholds that are currently raising children. By legalizing gay marriage, we have an opportunity to allow literally 10s of thousands of currently co-habiting households to become new "families of two married parents with children." That doesn't even account for the addtional gay people who might choose the familiy route if gay marriage is assured - the 125,000 existing households with kids are generally couples who've made that choice even without gay marriage.

It's rather odd that you fight so vehemently agasint something you say you are for...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation.

This is correct...just over 200 years to be exact.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

How can you say on one hand that we should extol the virtues of a family with two married parrents and kids, and then on the other that we should deny that option to an entire segment of the population? According to this study by the UCLA law school, there are ~125,000 gay housholds that are currently raising children. By legalizing gay marriage, we have an opportunity to allow literally 10s of thousands of currently co-habiting households to become new "families of two married parents with children." That doesn't even account for the addtional gay people who might choose the familiy route if gay marriage is assured - the 125,000 existing households with kids are generally couples who've made that choice even without gay marriage.

It's rather odd that you fight so vehemently agasint something you say you are for...

Exactly. Heterosexual serial monogamists who get divorced 3 times or have children with 4 different women have basically taken a dump on the institution of marriage....but all some people care about is protecting it from TEH GAYS!!

 

[burd]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

What signals are you referring to, exactly, in the context of this discussion?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

What signals are you referring to, exactly, in the context of this discussion?

I dunno, my girlfriend grew up in a household with two moms. Their family is by far one of the most loving, well adjusted, compassionate and all around good group of people I have ever met. Literally a foundational family in their neighborhood; liked by all. Or in other words...they do not deserve to have equal legal standing in the care of their daughter (since only one is a "biological mother) and their "non-nuclear" family is sending all the wrong signals to the poor children that have to cope with the fact that people like that exist.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I dunno, my girlfriend grew up in a household with two moms. Their family is by far one of the most loving, well adjusted, compassionate and all around good group of people I have ever met. Literally a foundational family in their neighborhood; liked by all. Or in other words...they do not deserve to have equal legal standing in the care of their daughter (since only one is a "biological mother) and their "non-nuclear" family is sending all the wrong signals to the poor children that have to cope with the fact that people like that exist.

Yep, definitely need a lot fewer families like that. Otherwise, we might run the risk that our children will see that all types of people can establish lifelong committed relationships - the horrors!

In other news, the tide keeps rising.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

In this particular instance that's not the question to ask (though I understand why you'd try to spin it that way), but whether a society might want to place greater value on relationships that can biologically lead to production of the next generation of the society over relationships that cannot. But, that's an very long touted and discussed point of view that I really don't believe you're not aware of (setting aside whether one agrees or disagrees for the moment).

This makes no sense. Gay people are not pressured into their preference for a same sex partner. This is the way they are born. I think it has been well proven that there is no way to change this, even with trained professionals, any more than you can change their race. Regardless of whether you were to execute these people or crown them king no matter how much value you place of relationships that reproduce heterosexual relationships are not what is natural to them. Obviously relationships between same sex people are not new. Legitimizing them only acknowledges what has been in the closet. (I know this next thought is weird but King Richard of England comes to mind. There are all sorts of questions about why he never produced an heir. One possible thought is because he was gay and doing his duty was abhorrent)

Really this is all part of a much larger conversation regarding the decline and deemphasis of the nuclear family. Mathwise, you're probably largely correct. But, this is just another brick in the wall of saying that the traditional family of two married parents with children has little or nothing special and valuable about it. This is a trend that's been going on for a long time in America, and this is just the latest manifestation. And our society is reaping the negative consequences of this in spades. The signals we send to our children as to what is important or not important in this country are just horrible.

This is contradictory. Same sex marriage does exactly what you think is important. It legalizes a 2 parent family with children. It holds them to all the standards expected of a nuclear family. If the couple is male they can adopt, use a surrogate just like any infertile couple. If the couple is female then they can use insemination, just like an infertile couple would. If the nuclear family is your object then it would make more sense to support those people who are willing to espouse that lifestyle.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

There's a lot of assumptions and beliefs that go into either viewpoint. For example, I believe that inherently there is a value in a father and mother that isn't the same when you don't have a father and a mother in a set of parents.

And to give the standard caveat, yes, some sets of male and female parents don't do a very good job. Believe me, I'm very well aware of that. But that doesn't mean the general principle doesn't stand.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

There's a lot of assumptions and beliefs that go into either viewpoint. For example, I believe that inherently there is a value in a father and mother that isn't the same when you don't have a father and a mother in a set of parents.

And to give the standard caveat, yes, some sets of male and female parents don't do a very good job. Believe me, I'm very well aware of that. But that doesn't mean the general principle doesn't stand.

I can understand this point of view. I can even appreciate that there's real value for kids growing up with both good male and good female role models, and maybe in an ideal world, every child would grow up in a family with opposite gendered parents.

However, we don't get to live in that world. We live in the world where lots and lots of people are gay, and lots of those gay people have kids. With those as indisputable facts, we really only have choices that fall somewhere between these two extremes:

A) Allow those gay people to form families that are functionally and legally equivalent to straight families in every way
B) Ensure that every child of a gay person grows up with a single parent

Even if you feel that choice A is inferior to having kids grow up with a mother and a father, how can it not be the NEXT best thing, and far superior to choice B?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I can understand this point of view. I can even appreciate that there's real value for kids growing up with both good male and good female role models, and maybe in an ideal world, every child would grow up in a family with opposite gendered parents.

However, we don't get to live in that world. We live in the world where lots and lots of people are gay, and lots of those gay people have kids. With those as indisputable facts, we really only have choices that fall somewhere between these two extremes:

A) Allow those gay people to form families that are functionally and legally equivalent to straight families in every way
B) Ensure that every child of a gay person grows up with a single parent

Even if you feel that choice A is inferior to having kids grow up with a mother and a father, how can it not be the NEXT best thing, and far superior to choice B?

C) Don't allow gay people to adopt children at all.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

C) Don't allow gay people to adopt children at all.

Who said anything about adoption? In vitro, surrogates, children from previous (hetero) marriages, guardianship of kids whoss parents passed away, etc. Gays with kids is not a "problem" that can be legislated away.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Who said anything about adoption? In vitro, surrogates, children from previous (hetero) marriages, guardianship of kids whoss parents passed away, etc. Gays with kids is not a "problem" that can be legislated away.

We can prevent that as well. Make it against the law to be gay and have kids. If you do then child services takes them away. In reality that's what the right wing wants. Putin has proven that because that's exactly who he is placating with his anti-gay agenda.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

We can prevent that as well. Make it against the law to be gay and have kids. If you do then child services takes them away. In reality that's what the right wing wants. Putin has proven that because that's exactly who he is placating with his anti-gay agenda.

Putin is placating the American right wing?