The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Add in the 9th Circuit.

Just about all of the domino's have fallen.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If people would just be straight up and say that they recognize a man and woman is the best structure for a family, but they support other structures nevertheless, I'd respect the position a lot more.

Enough to support gay marriage?

[/Quote] The traditional family is unavoidable collateral damage in the drive for imposing new forms of marriage and all.[/QUOTE]

Who seeks to impose new forms of marriage on anyone? Gays are only asking to be permitted to marry other gays, not to force heteros into gay marriages.

If I am gay and wish to marry my lover, will permitting me to do so cause happily married heteros to divorce and seek gay marriages? Of course not. Will preventing me from doing so cause me and other gays to see the light and come back into the fold to marry a hetero to enjoy a lifetime of nuclear hetero bliss? No evidence to support that assumption.

Gay marriage does not pose any threat to healthy hetero marriages or to nuclear families. The thought of gays and gay marriage does present a threat to some people (many of them good people, not haters), however, and that will take some time of overcome.

Of course, one has to be willing to change. I will always cling to my gopher hate syndrome as the one constant in an otherwise frightening world. Terrence Mann almost got it right.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Just about all of the domino's have fallen.

Yep. Sigh. Nothing left to do but get my butt down to the courthouse and get a divorce now that gay marriage has ruined my hetero one - hope the line isn't too long by the time I get there in the morning.

THANKS, OBAMA!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If you look back through history, most of history shows much bigger differences in the roles/behaviors/expectations of men and women than you see now. Not the other way around. But a lot of that is just noise for this particular discussion. Show me eras in history where women primarily played the male roles of things like warrior, protector, etc. I can't find them and have never even heard of that being argued before. I think you're putting history through a strainer that greatly distorts how things actually were. Again, I think we just see this fundamentally different and IMHO, your view is skewed significantly by how people see things at this moment and in the very near term past.

I think you made my point for me. Male dominance was based on physical strength when that was useful for being a warrior or a protector. Being a warrior today means flying a drone remotely from Provo. Being a protector today means making enough money to afford health insurance and hire a good lawyer. Women are exactly as qualified as men to do either.

The old roles are obsolete; the new roles have been developing for generations. Women don't have to spend their lives at a spinning wheel and men don't have to spend their lives putting heavy things on top of other things. The gender identifications that came from being good at those things are historical, yes, but it was a history based on technological limitation, so who cares? It also used to be "natural" for people to die of dysentery and the croup. Good riddance.

At some point even the most conservative of institutions will catch up. Even religion is just as historically-determined as any other institution, it just moves in slow motion (often for good). We blanch as the craziness of Islamic State, but Islamic State isn't preaching anything crazier than what the Old Testament God tells the Jews to do to their enemies and their women.

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I didn't say anyone was trying to prevent traditional marriage (and I'm not talking about someone specifically saying in the the last day or so, just what I've heard lots of times over the years on this board, to clarify). It's just that some people downplay if not outright ignore it's benefits to individuals and society as a whole and particularly children. And that contributes to an undermining of the institution and society is the lesser for this cascade of events. If people would just be straight up and say that they recognize a man and woman is the best structure for a family, but they support other structures nevertheless, I'd respect the position a lot more. The traditional family is unavoidable collateral damage in the drive for imposing new forms of marriage and all.

I think you dodged one of burd's most important questions. How do you determine who is a man and who is a woman? If you remember, I pressured you for this in a previous thread so you may very well have me on ignore at this point but I still think it is an essential key to your position.

I prefer to use the term same sex vs gay marriage because the laws as I understand it have nothing to do with an individuals sexuality, just gender. And, as I have said before, there is no consistent medical definition of gender. For this reason alone I have to support gender irrelevant marriage laws. Even at the level of DNA, gender is far from binary. XO genotype occurs in 1 in 2000 people. That is pretty darn common. About 6-8 times more common than ALS (to add perspective from recent news). There is also XXY, XXXY, XYY individuals and so on. And that is just genotypic variation. Phenotypic variation is even greater and much more difficult to classify.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think you dodged one of burd's most important questions. How do you determine who is a man and who is a woman? If you remember, I pressured you for this in a previous thread so you may very well have me on ignore at this point but I still think it is an essential key to your position.

I prefer to use the term same sex vs gay marriage because the laws as I understand it have nothing to do with an individuals sexuality, just gender. And, as I have said before, there is no consistent medical definition of gender. For this reason alone I have to support gender irrelevant marriage laws. Even at the level of DNA, gender is far from binary. XO genotype occurs in 1 in 2000 people. That is pretty darn common. About 6-8 times more common than ALS (to add perspective from recent news). There is also XXY, XXXY, XYY individuals and so on. And that is just genotypic variation. Phenotypic variation is even greater and much more difficult to classify.

Simple - if you're born with a schwanzstucker you're male. If you're born with a hoo ha you're female.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Simple - if you're born with a schwanzstucker you're male. If you're born with a hoo ha you're female.

I think that sums up the opponents of same-sex marriages knowledge of biology quite nicely.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

How do you determine who is a man and who is a woman?

The classic definition was XY chromosome or XX chromosome but even in that case there are rare exceptions like XXY for example.

"There are two kinds of people in this world, those who believe every issue can be boiled down into an 'either/or' choice, and those who don't."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

schwanzstucker

"That goes without saying."

"Voof."

"He's going to be very popular."

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Putting it another way, let's say you had a friend who was completely logical in every way except he hated Belgians. How would you go about even setting up a fair hearing on the hatred of Belgians for the purpose of one of you convincing the other? (I mean, after all, I suppose he could be right about Belgians.) I'm not smart enough to figure out how to set up a critical test that would be acceptable both parties.

While Belgians may or may not deserve their fate (the only one I know is a TV character: Hercules Poirot) I think people who strenuously object to gay marriage do it for two reasons: 1) religion, and 2) the country as they knew it is changing too fast for them.

I don't feel the need to question people's religious faith as I don't know the will of God. That's why I don't swear at the Jehovah's Witnesses that come by my door. What if it turns out they're right?!?! So, if for example Bob's basing his objections based on religion, and frankly I think he might be although he doesn't come out and say it, that's fine.

I'm a bit less sympathetic to people who just don't want anything to change (which sums up conservatism pretty well). I too was caught aback by the ruling in Mass 10 years go like most people were. But society moves on, and on this issue so should we IMHO.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

While Belgians may or may not deserve their fate (the only one I know is a TV character: Hercules Poirot) I think people who strenuously object to gay marriage do it for two reasons: 1) religion, and 2) the country as they knew it is changing too fast for them.

I don't feel the need to question people's religious faith as I don't know the will of God. That's why I don't swear at the Jehovah's Witnesses that come by my door. What if it turns out they're right?!?! So, if for example Bob's basing his objections based on religion, and frankly I think he might be although he doesn't come out and say it, that's fine.

I'm a bit less sympathetic to people who just don't want anything to change (which sums up conservatism pretty well). I too was caught aback by the ruling in Mass 10 years go like most people were. But society moves on, and on this issue so should we IMHO.

You left out reason #1: people who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they judge others' sexual preferences and practices to be "icky" or "unnatural." They can't stand the thought of "doing that" themselves, so they think others ought not to "do that," either. There are plenty of heterosexual sexual practices out there that would feel very unnatural to *me*, but I don't give a rip if others want to partake - have a ball. I feel exactly the same way about gay sex - it's not for me, but I sincerely hope that the people who partake have exceedingly fulfilling romantic relationships (or get married - you know, whichever they prefer!). Live and let live.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

While Belgians may or may not deserve their fate (the only one I know is a TV character: Hercules Poirot) I think people who strenuously object to gay marriage do it for two reasons: 1) religion, and 2) the country as they knew it is changing too fast for them.

I don't feel the need to question people's religious faith as I don't know the will of God. That's why I don't swear at the Jehovah's Witnesses that come by my door. What if it turns out they're right?!?! So, if for example Bob's basing his objections based on religion, and frankly I think he might be although he doesn't come out and say it, that's fine.

I'm a bit less sympathetic to people who just don't want anything to change (which sums up conservatism pretty well). I too was caught aback by the ruling in Mass 10 years go like most people were. But society moves on, and on this issue so should we IMHO.

I don't think many people only believe something "because my religion says so." Religion is integrated into a full life, so all (or most of) the world view and values of a person are mutually reinforcing of their religious views. It's not really possible to pry apart what of a person's mental furniture is "religious" as distinct from the other parts of them.

As far as Beligans go, the only other one I could think of was Hergé, the guy wrote drew Tin Tin. Here is a list of famous Belgians. Leopold II is a great candidate for hating.

Magritte, Rubens and Bruegel were all Belgian, so they're good at painting.

And this little lady was also Belgian.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You left out reason #1: people who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they judge others' sexual preferences and practices to be "icky" or "unnatural." They can't stand the thought of "doing that" themselves, so they think others ought not to "do that," either. There are plenty of heterosexual sexual practices out there that would feel very unnatural to *me*, but I don't give a rip if others want to partake - have a ball. I feel exactly the same way about gay sex - it's not for me, but I sincerely hope that the people who partake have exceedingly fulfilling romantic relationships (or get married - you know, whichever they prefer!). Live and let live.

Not sure if that's reason #1, but when all those uptight herpa-derp politicians and preachers get santorum about the Hershey Highway, that's exactly what's going on. Betcha they watch plenty of lesbian porn, though, because... well, come on!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You left out reason #1: people who are so insecure in their own sexuality that they judge others' sexual preferences and practices to be "icky" or "unnatural." They can't stand the thought of "doing that" themselves, so they think others ought not to "do that," either. There are plenty of heterosexual sexual practices out there that would feel very unnatural to *me*, but I don't give a rip if others want to partake - have a ball. I feel exactly the same way about gay sex - it's not for me, but I sincerely hope that the people who partake have exceedingly fulfilling romantic relationships (or get married - you know, whichever they prefer!). Live and let live.

Sooooo..... you're not a pony player?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think you made my point for me. Male dominance was based on physical strength when that was useful for being a warrior or a protector. Being a warrior today means flying a drone remotely from Provo. Being a protector today means making enough money to afford health insurance and hire a good lawyer. Women are exactly as qualified as men to do either.

The old roles are obsolete; the new roles have been developing for generations. Women don't have to spend their lives at a spinning wheel and men don't have to spend their lives putting heavy things on top of other things. The gender identifications that came from being good at those things are historical, yes, but it was a history based on technological limitation, so who cares? It also used to be "natural" for people to die of dysentery and the croup. Good riddance.

At some point even the most conservative of institutions will catch up. Even religion is just as historically-determined as any other institution, it just moves in slow motion (often for good). We blanch as the craziness of Islamic State, but Islamic State isn't preaching anything crazier than what the Old Testament God tells the Jews to do to their enemies and their women.

Nothing lasts forever.

Your looking at outward things like what a person does for a living or at home or whatever. It's much deeper than that. For example, studies have shown that men and women typically discipline in different ways, play with the kids in different ways, etc. And those different ways help kids develop and learn. It's not something outward like a spinning wheel or hunting or whatever, which I agree for the most part could be interchangeable these days. I know as a people Americans are very absorbed by what is outward, but there really is a lot more to the situation.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why yes, you are.

Coming from you, that's a compliment and I know I'm on the right track.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Sooooo..... you're not a pony player?

I'm completely torn between two responses:

1. "No, no - I love that. It's that missionary-every-other-Tuesday-at-7-pm stuff that creeps me out!"

-or-

2. "Paging Jimjamesak."

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I find interesting the argument against gay marriage because that claims it ruins the sanctity of the construct and is an infringement.

There aren't enough gay marriages that can even begin to tarnish what's already been compromised by heteros due to divorce, infidelity, physical abuse, neglect, absentee parents, failed parenting, etc., etc.

And my marriage will work or not regardless - we have not been infringed upon.

Also marriage is not a natural construct, it's man made.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Your looking at outward things like what a person does for a living or at home or whatever. It's much deeper than that. For example, studies have shown that men and women typically discipline in different ways, play with the kids in different ways, etc. And those different ways help kids develop and learn. It's not something outward like a spinning wheel or hunting or whatever, which I agree for the most part could be interchangeable these days. I know as a people Americans are very absorbed by what is outward, but there really is a lot more to the situation.

I take your point. I do think it's probably next to impossible to disentangle behavior from cultural norms, however. Men hit and women soothe, maybe, but they also learned those things as acceptable behaviors from their environment.

But brains are definitely different -- men have amazing pattern recognition from needing to see the tiger in the distance and abstract cognition from having to visualize the hunting party tactics; women have amazing multi-tasking abilities from having to do all their work with a screaming baby in the background and are filled up with hormones from carrying a fetus for 9 months. The genes that pass those characteristics on float in everybody's DNA, and for some reason seem to express more frequently when also linked to sexual characteristics. (Any geneticists out there? Is it just more efficient? Because I would think a person with great cognitive recognition and multi-tasking would have a selection advantage, and I don't see why they are mutually exclusive).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I take your point. I do think it's probably next to impossible to disentangle behavior from cultural norms, however.

I agree that it's all entangled together. Culture, religion, enthnicity, individual person experiences, genetics, etc. That's part of what makes it so hard, and interesting, to sort out the hows and whys of what people do. People are complex and defy easy explanation and definition.