What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LynahFan said:
Start answering questions and make me a liar, then.
Click to expand...
If you can't read my answers, I can't help you with that. I don't have the time to answer every question I get asked all the time, but I do answer as many as I can when they are asked nicely. Which is a lot more than I get back from people like you.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
You're confusing Bob with Pio.

I think I could hit Bob's position concerning same-sex marriage pretty closely. Ahem:

"Even setting aside the historical roots of marriage as one man / one woman, and even for the moment positing that in this brave new world of yours no stigma would be attached either to the couple or their children, same sex marriage lacks the virtues -- assuming both parents are monogamous and living -- that no matter whether a child is a boy or a girl, they have one parent who matches their biological sex and has experience dealing with being that sex, and also that each parent knows the child is biologically theirs, thus increasing both the positive and negative pressures on them to be responsible and not just pack up and leave. While none of this guarantees a healthy childhood, it at least improves the odds. Therefore I oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that we should try to improve the odds of raising healthy children."

I personally have no issue with the basic logic and good intentions of this line of argument. Obviously I weight portions differently and come to a different conclusion, but since Bob reminds me in several ways of my dad and he argued in this manner, I think I know that it comes from a good place.
Click to expand...
I absolutely don't doubt the good intentions of this argument - but it's still utter, complete, 100% unadulterated crap.

Ahem:

Historically, the best bridges have been, by and large, designed by men. It's not universally true - I'm sure there are some examples of overlap where some good bridges have occasionally been designed by women, and those bridges are better than some of the worst bridges designed by men, but the basic trend is certainly there. Society has a pretty strong interest in ensuring that our bridges are designed under the best of circumstances, so we think it's an acceptable limitation on citizens' civil rights to impose a rule that all bridge contracts should go to design firms that are headed by men. While this won't guarantee that all of our bridges are well-designed, it at least improves the odds.

If that sounds ridiculous to you (and I hope that it does), well, that's the same feeling I get about that argument when it's applied to same-sex marriage.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
If you can't read my answers, I can't help you with that. I don't have the time to answer every question I get asked all the time, but I do answer as many as I can when they are asked nicely. Which is a lot more than I get back from people like you.
Click to expand...
Awwww...poor Bob. 23,281 posts but no time to answer any direct questions. Put these (nicely asked, and ignored) questions on your list for the next time you have some free time:

Post 1177: "Let's say that it is true that the best setup is mother and father and that we ought to encourage that. How exactly does banning gay marriage contribute to that goal? I honestly don't see that link. It's not like gay people are going to suddenly want to form hetero families just because they don't get gay married. Can you explain how this is supposed to work?"

Post 1286: "What is your own position on same-sex marriage and why?"

There's nothing nasty in either of those questions.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LynahFan said:
Awwww...poor Bob. 23,281 posts but no time to answer any direct questions. Put these (nicely asked, and ignored) questions on your list for the next time you have some free time:

Post 1177: "Let's say that it is true that the best setup is mother and father and that we ought to encourage that. How exactly does banning gay marriage contribute to that goal? I honestly don't see that link. It's not like gay people are going to suddenly want to form hetero families just because they don't get gay married. Can you explain how this is supposed to work?"

Post 1286: "What is your own position on same-sex marriage and why?"

There's nothing nasty in either of those questions.
Click to expand...
I'm feeling generous today. Welcome to Ignore. You used to be a reasonable poster.
 
Kepler said:
, and also that each parent knows the child is biologically theirs,
Click to expand...

Unless you're planning on banning step parents or adoption (which would be interesting coming from the party of family values and pro life rhetoric), this has never been universally true.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LynahFan said:
Post 1177: "Let's say that it is true that the best setup is mother and father and that we ought to encourage that. How exactly does banning gay marriage contribute to that goal? I honestly don't see that link. It's not like gay people are going to suddenly want to form hetero families just because they don't get gay married. Can you explain how this is supposed to work?"
Click to expand...
As recently as a couple of decades ago the strong public bias, discrimination and ostracism against gays and lesbians certainly kept the vast majority of them "in the closet" and probably in many instances led to hetero marriages, and even children as a form of cover. So I suppose the argument could go that if we treat gays and lesbians badly enough if they "come out", we can keep them underground and force at least some of them into hetero marriages to preserve their public reputation.

Doesn't really sound like a very healthy public policy to me, though.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

SJHovey said:
As recently as a couple of decades ago the strong public bias, discrimination and ostracism against gays and lesbians certainly kept the vast majority of them "in the closet" and probably in many instances led to hetero marriages, and even children as a form of cover. So I suppose the argument could go that if we treat gays and lesbians badly enough if they "come out", we can keep them underground and force at least some of them into hetero marriages to preserve their public reputation.

Doesn't really sound like a very healthy public policy to me, though.
Click to expand...

This a great point. My parents used to argue that although they personally could not care less about multi-racial marriages, there were enough racists who did that the offspring would be miserable, therefore...

It's not at all a mean-spirited argument, and I think I knew my parents well enough to know it wasn't just a justification for a deep-seated actual racism (they were old enough to have racist feelings, sure, but they were also smart enough to check themselves when they did). IMHO, the gay marriage argument below follows the same contours.

There are several problems with it. Lynah addresses the first. unofan suggests the second (I'd add in infertile people, divorce among heteros, infidelity, people who marry with no intention whatever of having kids, etc). And the third is yours above, and I think in large part it is the most important: we should not shape our policies to bow to the bullies. There are lots of ways this plays out in the public sphere -- the classic example is atheists. We have all pretty much tacitly agreed that an open atheist can't be president. Why? Because there are huge numbers of people (some loud, most insistent, and a few violent) who insist that someone without religious faith is ipso facto disqualified for the presidency because he "is without ethics." On the other hand, there are virtually no atheists who insist that someone with religious faith is ipso facto disqualified for the presidency because he is having a psychic break with reality or at least engaged in wishful, magical thinking. The intolerance is heavily skewed, and the vast majority who couldn't care less -- well, they couldn't care less, so the intolerant win.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

LynahFan said:
I absolutely don't doubt the good intentions of this argument - but it's still utter, complete, 100% unadulterated crap.

Ahem:

Historically, the best bridges have been, by and large, designed by men. It's not universally true - I'm sure there are some examples of overlap where some good bridges have occasionally been designed by women, and those bridges are better than some of the worst bridges designed by men, but the basic trend is certainly there. Society has a pretty strong interest in ensuring that our bridges are designed under the best of circumstances, so we think it's an acceptable limitation on citizens' civil rights to impose a rule that all bridge contracts should go to design firms that are headed by men. While this won't guarantee that all of our bridges are well-designed, it at least improves the odds.

If that sounds ridiculous to you (and I hope that it does), well, that's the same feeling I get about that argument when it's applied to same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

God I love this post! :)

Ya know I was one of the first to say Bob liked to go up on the cross...why hasnt he ignored me yet? I feel slighted ****it!!!
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Handyman said:
God I love this post! :)

Ya know I was one of the first to say Bob liked to go up on the cross...why hasnt he ignored me yet? I feel slighted ****it!!!
Click to expand...
I just tell you to get off my lawn. That seems to work!
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofan said:
He'll refer to you in the third person while ostensibly responding to someone else. Welcome to the club.
Click to expand...

I've also noticed that when he does see one of your posts, he'll often make sure to mention that he has you on ignore, just so everyone still knows.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

SJHovey said:
As recently as a couple of decades ago the strong public bias, discrimination and ostracism against gays and lesbians certainly kept the vast majority of them "in the closet" and probably in many instances led to hetero marriages, and even children as a form of cover. So I suppose the argument could go that if we treat gays and lesbians badly enough if they "come out", we can keep them underground and force at least some of them into hetero marriages to preserve their public reputation.

Doesn't really sound like a very healthy public policy to me, though.
Click to expand...
Homosexual men and women used to marry all the time, they were each others' "beards." A couple of gay men would find a couple of lesbians, marry them for public purposes, and then the two "families" would live in the same neighborhood. The men and women would become fast friends and spend a lot of time at each others' homes. Usually they did not have children, often both couples alleging infertility, which helped explain that really tight bond with the other neighbors.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

St. Clown said:
Homosexual men and women used to marry all the time, they were each others' "beards." A couple of gay men would find a couple of lesbians, marry them for public purposes, and then the two "families" would live in the same neighborhood. The men and women would become fast friends and spend a lot of time at each others' homes. Usually they did not have children, often both couples alleging infertility, which helped explain that really tight bond with the other neighbors.
Click to expand...
Sheds new light on an old classic .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top