The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The connection is people trying to rationalize their prejudice by cherry-picking data.

You're accusing me of scare tactics? You're the one implying that gay marriages will produce unhappy children. That is a scare tactic.

Ask yourself this, Bob. Is there any possible weight of empirical evidence that would change your opinion on gay marriage? And then go further and ask your conservative self this: even if there was such evidence, would it be powerful enough -- if it were on the other side -- to negate your default position that people should be free to make their own decisions and live their own lives?

Why are you and other so afraid and defensive of the fact that having a father and mother is the best setup for a family? And if so, shouldn't society be encouraging the best setup, within reason?

As for the connection you are trying to make, I understand how you see it and we simply come at it from very different perspectives.

And the whole notion that those who don't support gay marriage inherrently hate gays or anything of the sort is simply wrong, and really rather offensive. It's just a way of falsely making someone on the other side of an issue seem bad so it's ok to say all sorts of demeaning things about them. Such tactics are wrong, regardless of issue and which side anyone is on. A mature thinking adult should be able to oppose a certain thing, yet get along with those on the other side of the issue. It used to work that way a lot more than it does now. The fact that that happens so little in America anymore is one of the most damming evidences of failure in our society. I have neighbors, coworkers, etc. that are gay and we get along just fine.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why are you and other so afraid and defensive of the fact that having a father and mother is the best setup for a family? And if so, shouldn't society be encouraging the best setup, within reason?

As for the connection you are trying to make, I understand how you see it and we simply come at it from very different perspectives.

And the whole notion that those who don't support gay marriage inherrently hate gays or anything of the sort is simply wrong, and really rather offensive. It's just a way of falsely making someone on the other side of an issue seem bad so it's ok to say all sorts of demeaning things about them. Such tactics are wrong, regardless of issue and which side anyone is on. A mature thinking adult should be able to oppose a certain thing, yet get along with those on the other side of the issue. It used to work that way a lot more than it does now. The fact that that happens so little in America anymore is one of the most damming evidences of failure in our society. I have neighbors, coworkers, etc. that are gay and we get along just fine.

You like them. You just want to deny them their rights.

That makes no sense.

I just bent over backwards saying I am not "afraid" of a family with a mother and a father. Why are you so afraid of a family where there are two parents but they happen to have the same sex organs? Why on earth would it matter?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why are you and other so afraid and defensive of the fact that having a father and mother is the best setup for a family? And if so, shouldn't society be encouraging the best setup, within reason?

I agree with you that we should encourage it. I just don't think that requires us constructing bans on alternatives.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You like them. You just want to deny them their rights.

That makes no sense.

I just bent over backwards saying I am not "afraid" of a family with a mother and a father. Why are you so afraid of a family where there are two parents but they happen to have the same sex organs? Why on earth would it matter?

I don't view it as a right, as I'm sure you're aware of from past conversations. Just as I don't view polygamists as having the right to marry more than one other person. Usually this is about where the wailing gets to be about deafening (not from you, but from others).

I know you said that you'd like to have a deeper discussion, and I'd be happy to, but I'm sure you can understand that given the inability of some on here to do so in a respectful manner, I save those sorts of discussions for elsewhere.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Amazing the amount of hate the traditional nuclear family gets. One of many signs that the social fabric of the nation continues to tear. One good thing about the influx of Hispanics is that they tend to value family a lot more than Anglo American white culture does anymore.

But, haters gonna hate. Nothing one can do about that.

Bob, I haven't gone back to read the last couple of days on this thread, but which posters supported any law that prevents heteros from getting married? None, I'd guess. I would hazard to guess that nearly all the Ladies of the Chorale support the right of heteros to get married. Further, they encourage it. Shout it from the rooftops.

On the other hand, some posters, including you, apparently, support laws that bar gays from getting married. One is a viewpoint of inclusion; the other a viewpoint of exclusion. For someone who supports exclusion to claim he is being "hated" by those who support inclusion is just silliness. I'm not saying you are a hateful person--I do not believe you are, and you have clearly made a recent effort to cite the bases for your opinions, which not enough of us do. But you are in the act of running out to your garage, hastily making a sword of some kind, pointing it at yourself, and planning to fall on it. You do not have to do that, and I'm here to save you from yourself!

But having saved you, I have to ask what assumptions you are making in order to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. How do you determine what a man is and what a woman is. I posted another one of my idiotic posts earlier in this thread which probably seemed to be only in jest, but I was serious (as I can be). If you distinguish any way other than chromosome count, you are in for some real frustration. Some women feel as much a man as you and I do, and with hormone therapy and surgery, they can pass just about any test we put to them. The ultimate test is in the DNA, of course (at least for now), but I doubt children or ancient prophets can or could ever detect chromosomal differences. The ancients used their senses, and kids use their eyes and ears and their instinctive ability to know who can love them and for what reasons.

You want to prohibit same sex marriage? Fine, then define what is a man and what is a woman in a way that serves the rationale supporting the distinction.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I don't view it as a right, as I'm sure you're aware of from past conversations. Just as I don't view polygamists as having the right to marry more than one other person. Usually this is about where the wailing gets to be about deafening (not from you, but from others).

I know you said that you'd like to have a deeper discussion, and I'd be happy to, but I'm sure you can understand that given the inability of some on here to do so in a respectful manner, I save those sorts of discussions for elsewhere.

OK, that's fair.

I agree it's a low blow to equate opposing gay marriage with hating gays, so I'm sorry for saying that. I hope to convince you that likewise having no preference for a nuclear family is not the same as "hating" or "fearing" it, and the opposition to encoding the precepts of a particular sect of Christianity into law is not the same as "hating" Christianity.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob, I haven't gone back to read the last couple of days on this thread, but which posters supported any law that prevents heteros from getting married? None, I'd guess. I would hazard to guess that nearly all the Ladies of the Chorale support the right of heteros to get married. Further, they encourage it. Shout it from the rooftops.

On the other hand, some posters, including you, apparently, support laws that bar gays from getting married. One is a viewpoint of inclusion; the other a viewpoint of exclusion. For someone who supports exclusion to claim he is being "hated" by those who support inclusion is just silliness. I'm not saying you are a hateful person--I do not believe you are, and you have clearly made a recent effort to cite the bases for your opinions, which not enough of us do. But you are in the act of running out to your garage, hastily making a sword of some kind, pointing it at yourself, and planning to fall on it. You do not have to do that, and I'm here to save you from yourself!

But having saved you, I have to ask what assumptions you are making in order to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. How do you determine what a man is and what a woman is. I posted another one of my idiotic posts earlier in this thread which probably seemed to be only in jest, but I was serious (as I can be). If you distinguish any way other than chromosome count, you are in for some real frustration. Some women feel as much a man as you and I do, and with hormone therapy and surgery, they can pass just about any test we put to them. The ultimate test is in the DNA, of course (at least for now), but I doubt children or ancient prophets can or could ever detect chromosomal differences. The ancients used their senses, and kids use their eyes and ears and their instinctive ability to know who can love them and for what reasons.

You want to prohibit same sex marriage? Fine, then define what is a man and what is a woman in a way that serves the rationale supporting the distinction.

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.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

OK, that's fair.

I agree it's a low blow to equate opposing gay marriage with hating gays, so I'm sorry for saying that. I hope to convince you that likewise having no preference for a nuclear family is not the same as "hating" or "fearing" it, and the opposition to encoding the precepts of a particular sect of Christianity into law is not the same as "hating" Christianity.

I would take issue that a man and woman being the norm for being parents and being the preferred structure is some specifically Christian notion, as nature itself, as well as history across many cultures that had little or no Christian influence recognized, and in many cases continue to recognize this.

I will certainly concede that someone's failure to recognize the value a traditional nuclear family brings does not mean they particularly hate such a structure or those who place more value on it. The mentions of hate refer to my observation of some of the more vehement lefties on here making quite disparaging comments in the past about valuing the traditional nuclear family.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I would take issue that a man and woman being the norm for being parents and being the preferred structure is some specifically Christian notion, as nature itself, as well as history across many cultures that had little or no Christian influence recognized, and in many cases continue to recognize this.

I will certainly concede that someone's failure to recognize the value a traditional nuclear family brings does not mean they particularly hate such a structure or those who place more value on it. The mentions of hate refer to my observation of some of the more vehement lefties on here making quite disparaging comments in the past about valuing the traditional nuclear family.

The optimal family has love and stability. Given how hard they've had to fight for the right, I'm willing to bet that right now married homosexual parents are creating a far better environment for their children than the typical married heterosexual parents.

This will change, as "gay marriage" is forgotten and people just think about "marriage." Gay marriage will eventually become as cheap and thoughtless as straight marriage. Whoopee!

The other thing that will change, has already dramatically changed, is people who attack homosexuals will die off, creating a far less stressful environment for everybody. This is the equivalent of multi-racial families -- the biggest problem is the haters, and as the haters die the problems die with them. In the case of American multi-racial couples it took place blindingly fast -- within 2 generations. That speaks very well of America; just think, the Indians have been working on abolishing their caste system for a thousand years and they still suck.

There is no reason to think a nuclear family is superior. The only thing that matters is the kids know they are loved, get enough to eat, and maybe have somebody in their extended family who read a book once.

I am sure the Church will eventually adapt as well, just as they are sloooooooooooooooooowly doing with women. And once the "worries" about gays are no longer being preached from the pulpit, that will put it to bed for good. The world will be a slightly better place, with one less group getting the shaft.

Well, we'll always have the poor to crap on, anyway.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The optimal family has love and stability. Given how hard they've had to fight for the right, I'm willing to bet that right now married homosexual parents are creating a far better environment for their children than the typical married heterosexual parents.

This will change, as "gay marriage" is forgotten and people just think about "marriage." Gay marriage will eventually become as cheap and thoughtless as straight marriage. Whoopee!

The other thing that will change, has already dramatically changed, is people who attack homosexuals will die off, creating a far less stressful environment for everybody. This is the equivalent of multi-racial families -- the biggest problem is the haters, and as the haters die the problems die with them. In the case of American multi-racial couples it took place blindingly fast -- within 2 generations. That speaks very well of America; just think, the Indians have been working on abolishing their caste system for a thousand years and they still suck.

There is no reason to think a nuclear family is superior. The only thing that matters is the kids know they are loved, get enough to eat, and maybe have somebody in their extended family who read a book once.

I am sure the Church will eventually adapt as well, just as they are sloooooooooooooooooowly doing with women. And once the "worries" about gays are no longer being preached from the pulpit, that will put it to bed for good. The world will be a slightly better place, with one less group getting the shaft.

Well, we'll always have the poor to crap on, anyway.

We'll agree to disagree I guess. I don't see how two gals can be a male role model for a little boy the way a man can, but, hey, I guess that's just another old-fashioned notion to some.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

We'll agree to disagree I guess. I don't see how two gals can be a male role model for a little boy the way a man can, but, hey, I guess that's just another old-fashioned notion to some.

Maybe the world would be better if instead of passing on their gendered behavior people just passed on kindness and respect.

You are probably right that the old "gals were gals and men were men" is dying off, too. Those identities were always just a product of our different abilities to hunt and gather. It's been a long time since we really needed them.

Again, the Church is actually the perfect model for what could happen. There's no gender expectations in Christ's teaching. Jesus didn't say "love one another but boys don't cry!"

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Maybe the world would be better if instead of passing on their gendered behavior people just passed on kindness and respect.

You are probably right that the old "gals were gals and men were men" is dying off, too. Those identities were always just a product of our different abilities to hunt and gather. It's been a long time since we really needed them.

Again, the Church is actually the perfect model for what could happen. There's no gender expectations in Christ's teaching. Jesus didn't say "love one another but boys don't cry!"

Male and female identities are just a product of their different abilities to hunt and gather? Wow. We really are on different pages, or rather in totally different books. One can note differences in the sexes while also supporting equal opportunities and that sort of things. People always set up false choices on subjects like this.

I'll leave the biblical stuff you are saying go, as that'd be another entire discussion.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Male and female identities are just a product of their different abilities to hunt and gather? Wow. We really are on different pages, or rather in totally different books. One can note differences in the sexes while also supporting equal opportunities and that sort of things. People always set up false choices on subjects like this.

No, there are obvious bio-chemical differences, but people have also always mistaken cultural norms for "nature." In the 19th century people honestly thought women couldn't be doctors or lawyers because their brains were "different." Turns out, yes, their brains are different, and no, that doesn't have anything to do with being a doctor or a lawyer.

Old Testament father / New Testament mother is just as silly. It's obvious that you can be a man with all the supposedly "usual" emotional characteristics of women and vice versa. Masculinity and femininity have changed many times over history. The Hollywood version is just the latest incarnation -- if you go back and read Homer or Sophocles or Shakespeare the ideas of gender identity that we think are "natural" are so different we can barely understand the works.

We always think what is "has always been." We always identify what we are comfortable with as "natural."

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

that will put it to bed for good.

Awww... So young and full of hope.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Awww... So young and full of hope.

Might and right are always fighting
In our youth it seems exciting
Right is always nearly winning
Might can barely keep from grinning

 

[unofan]

I agree with you that we should encourage it. I just don't think that requires us constructing bans on alternatives.

His position also isn't legally defensible, since his own state predicates infertility in order to sanction some marriages. Clearly marriage isn't just about children, or such marriages would be just as illegal as gay marriage in his state.

 

[LynahFan]

Why are you and other so afraid and defensive of the fact that having a father and mother is the best setup for a family? And if so, shouldn't society be encouraging the best setup, within reason?

Okay, then. 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?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

No, there are obvious bio-chemical differences, but people have also always mistaken cultural norms for "nature." In the 19th century people honestly thought women couldn't be doctors or lawyers because their brains were "different." Turns out, yes, their brains are different, and no, that doesn't have anything to do with being a doctor or a lawyer.

Old Testament father / New Testament mother is just as silly. It's obvious that you can be a man with all the supposedly "usual" emotional characteristics of women and vice versa. Masculinity and femininity have changed many times over history. The Hollywood version is just the latest incarnation -- if you go back and read Homer or Sophocles or Shakespeare the ideas of gender identity that we think are "natural" are so different we can barely understand the works.

We always think what is "has always been." We always identify what we are comfortable with as "natural."

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.

 

[theprofromdover]

You add words to change the meaning of what he posted, while I comment on what was actually posted and I'm obtuse?

Why yes, you are.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Add in the 9th Circuit.