"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 12:22 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Don't jump on your soapbox when you say:


and proceed to tell me I appear to be uneducated, un-researched, inarticulate, deficient in debating, and disingenuous to name a few when you perceived me to be "putting words in your mouth" (something I didn't do) Now is that nice? Is that someone who sounds like they are keeping their cool?

Me thinks not.

And you called me intolerant, afraid of change, immature, and my reasoning "ridiculous. childish. stupid rationale." Unlike you, I don't whine about it. Sadcryface2

But anyway, let's consider the following:

- I asked you to demonstrate societal benefits of gay marriage, you listed individual benefits.
- You incorrectly assumed that I was religious.
- You misunderstood my analogy of driver's license by thinking that the point is about age.
- You incorrectly assumed that I think all women want children [feminist victim mentality]
- You incorrectly assumed that I blame women for the shortage of pensions and social security systems [more feminist victim mentality]
- You erroneously linked my skeptical stance on gay marriage with restrictions of women's suffrage and interracial marriage (repeatedly, although I explained why the link is fallacious)
- You claim that I'm in favor of discrimination, I quoted the ruling of the court that is an authority on human rights on my continent, and it says it is not discrimination.
- You argue from exception
- You incorrectly assumed that I think legalization of gay marriage equals less children
- You are emotional and dramatic, and you project that on me ("by refusing homosexuals equal stance in their marriage, alienating is exactly what you are doing")
- You ignore most of what I say and repeat your assertions and misinterpretations
- You quote a study that involved 78 children (in my statistics classes I was taught that any study that doesn't involve at least 1,000 participants is not worthy of even being looked at)
- After all that, you started telling your personal story
- You misunderstood my questioning of your statement that the society doesn't have a say in someone else's relationship. I asked if someone should intervene if abuse occurs, you said "yes and no" (?) and continued talking about something completely unrelated.

And you call this "debating" and "personal insights." And you take offense that I "insult your ability to read and think." No, I don't - you do it yourself. Dodgy

You proceed in the same fashion:

Quote:You made a claim that marriage traditions changing devalues the meaning: we countered that marriage traditions always have and will continue to change.

Irrelevant, because I never used the argument from tradition.

Quote:You stated that heterosexual couples give the best environment for children, we countered that the data doesn't support that.

A study with 78 participants? Totally devastating.

Quote:You compared adoption, surrogacy, egg and sperm donation to human trafficking. We countered that you only apply that extreme an insulting definition to same sex couples.

No.

Quote:You argued that the population is decreasing. We countered that the data suggests otherwise.

Because you constantly talk about the population of the entire world combined. I didn't.


One would have to understand why I became a bit edgy and frustrated after all this. It's hard to swim against a tide, especially when debating feels like talking to a wall. Nowhere have I had more of my statements misinterpreted than here. Not to mention the implicit hostility towards me because I don't "toe the party line." The title says that this is an atheist forum. And I was told that atheism is not an ideology, and that the only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a deity. Therefore, one would expect a diversity of opinions here, yet it is not what I found. I encountered an almost dogmatic belief which I'm apparently not allowed even to question, let alone disagree with. I don't expect people to agree with me of course, but at least an acknowledgement of my efforts would be polite - ignoring, twisting and attacking is not a good manner of communication. And this goes for most forum members who debated me on this thread:

- Morondog lost his temper, but later apologized. Even later, however, he repeated an assertion that I explained away several times, like I never did.
- Slowminded took offense having read my story about the war (because he is a member of the nation that waged war against mine), so he attacked me personally by comparing me to a Nazi.
- WeAreTheCosmos just dropped in with a sarcastic, smartass remark.
- Clj joined the debate late and misunderstood my argument (post 87). Probably intentionally, because I know he is a strong intellect otherwise.

I didn't start this discussion to change opinions. I did it in order to test whether members of this forum are genuinely open-minded and free-thinking as most usually claim. I also wanted this discussion to make me rethink my stance on marriage. However, in a cluster of fallacies, passive-aggressive remarks, personal attacks and misinterpretations of my arguments, I struggled to spot a proper argument. I noted a consistent lack of respect for my opinion, which led me to a conclusion that this forum is not an oasis of free thought which I had been looking for when I searched for a forum to join a month ago. And that makes me disappointed.

Therefore, I don't intend to continue posting on this topic, and I'll take a break from this forum altogether. Maybe I won't come back at all - I have yet to see.
If I can take only a stance that agrees with the official "manifesto," then I don't really enjoy the discussion at all.



In conclusion...

(30-09-2013 01:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  He doesn't get to decide....society decides. As a member of society, he gets a voice and nothing more.

Exactly. And if I voted on a referendum on gay marriage, I would mark the option "AGAINST." Don't like it? Suck it up. Dodgy

And you would be as wrong and foolish as those who protested against Women being allowed to vote or those who fought against freeing slaves. Human Rights are not about benefits to society but about protection of Individuals from their governments, their compatriots, the "majority", or anyone else that wishes to impugn upon them.

You have stated that a European court determined that Marriage was not a Right. If so then they are in the minority opinion on that. The consensus view is that Marriage is in fact a Right and should therefore be evenly protected by the Law. If all citizens are not equal before the law than the law is inherently unjust.

Everything else is distraction and irrelevant. Family planning has nothing to do with marriage as it pertains to the benefits. A married childless couple receives the same legal benefits as a married couple with children. Your point there is moot. However most jurisdictions give precedent in adoption to married couples. Since there is an overflow of children in state care worldwide allowing Homosexuals to obtain that favored legal status would actually improve the lives of the children they would then be legally allowed to adopt. The difference being that those couples would all have chosen to become parents as opposed to the high number of unplanned and unwanted children that result from hetrosexual sex.

I generally enjoy reading your posts but on this issue you are incorrect and being very shortsighted. So please answer this simple question "What right of yours should be up to popular vote?" Think long and hard about it and then explain how that is any different from what you are endorsing here.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
30-09-2013, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 04:41 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  - You incorrectly assumed that I blame women for the shortage of pensions and social security systems [more feminist victim mentality]

(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  The times have changed however - women are now in the workforce just like men; and pensions, social security and other benefits can secure a person's old age. This is not something bad of course, but it has unfortunately led to a decreased desire to have children - much to the detriment of national birth rates. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Western society has separated the concepts of marriage and procreation, and I believe it is the reason for the "crisis" of marriage these days - i.e. high divorce rates, low marriage rates, disputes on alimony or property, etc. My reasoning is, if we extend marriage to include homosexual couples, we will finally and legally divorce marriage from procreation (pun not intended). While this may not destroy the institution of marriage, it certainly wouldn't help it either. And some developed countries that have a welfare system are already concerned about low birth rates. Pension and social security systems are already becoming overburdened because of a smaller number of people entering the workforce, and it is estimated that a shortage of workers may happen sooner than we may think. And this would affect all of us, in a negative way.

Seems here you made circular argument that women in the workforce = decreased desire for children = decreased workforce. But if you insist..my mistake.

(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  - You argue from exception


As do you!


(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You made a claim that marriage traditions changing devalues the meaning: we countered that marriage traditions always have and will continue to change.

(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Irrelevant, because I never used the argument from tradition.

(29-09-2013 05:24 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Marriage has been monogamous and heterosexual for cca. 2,000 years and it has worked.
You're the ones who want to redefine it, so it only makes sense that you demonstrate good reasons for doing it.

Oh my...seems here you did use the argument from tradition. but if you insist thats not what you mean (even though its what you said) My mistake

(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You compared adoption, surrogacy, egg and sperm donation to human trafficking. We countered that you only apply that extreme an insulting definition to same sex couples.

(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  No.

(30-09-2013 02:04 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  he child that's born in that way is not a child of both of its "parents". I don't understand how you can't see that. In both cases, they need a third person to "donate" either a sperm cell or an egg cell (in other words, to be a parent, but without responsibilities). In the former case, they even need to rent some woman's body for 9 months so she can bring "their" child to the world [oddly, there are no complaints about this from those who always point out objectification and degradation of women]. If the egg cell was hers ("traditional" surrogacy), she was actually carrying her own baby for 9 months, and then she sold it to someone who was willing to pay. And that, by definition, is human trafficking of the worst kind - I say of the worst kind because it's done by the child's own mother.

Don't ya just hate it when someone shows you evidence of you contradicting yourself? Its the reason Jon Stewart from the Daily show is so successful.

Here you used this argument when someone stated that there were other means of conception than just biological parents for homosexuals. You must have also implied that infertile heterosexual couples seeking these same solutions would also be guilty of facilitating human trafficking. (you didn't apply this same standard to opposite sex couples) Again. My mistake. [insert sarcasm font]



You also refused to answer certain points of mine. For example, I asked you which western civilization you were referring to 2,000 years ago? You declined to answer. You say that you have repeatedly explained your points, and we have stated that your points are not valid arguments. You keep insisting that you have answered it satisfactorily, and we keep saying that you haven't.

Additionally, you have repeatedly responded to a part and parceled statements I made so that you could react (emotionally) to the fact that I was "putting words in your mouth." and thereby distracting from the fact that you didn't address my point at hand. Ironic that you would also accuse me of getting emotional regarding my personal stories as a distraction to the issue.

We can agree to disagree, however, we are not asking for you to convert your view. We are asking you to present valid arguments for your view. *I* contend, that you haven't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 01:00 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
@ Philosoraptor

Among the many hats I wear, one of them is Secular Humanist. I try to gauge the world around me in terms of suffering, what causes it and alleviate it. Empathy is also a very integral part of this paradigm. In light of these values that I hold, I am compelled by both reason and empathy, to stand against discrimination based on one's sexual orientation.

I believe that love is good, and should be shared. I think the fact that there are people who are driven to murderous hatred because they object to the objects of affection of other human beings, is one of our species greatest shortcomings. In light of my empathy and desire to alleviate suffering, I whole-heatedly support the push for marriage equality.

As a matter of legality, I think it is supremely unfair to deny homosexual couples all of the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples, on nothing more than the basis of the gender of those they choose to love. Fortunately in the United States, equal protection under the law is one of our Constitutional rights; and I hope that if get challenged in the Supreme Court, that they decide in favor of integration and not segregation. I also believe that acknowledging marriage equality will big a big step forward against the social stigmatization of homosexuality. I hope that once their equality is recognized legally, that homosexual couples will be better able to reach a state of social acceptability and normalcy. Once again, love is good; and to hate someone for who they love is absurd.

Outside of this, it feels like all of the other arguments are just paper stand-ins so that people don't have to fess up that they simply think gay people are 'icky'. The arguments have the same poor intellectual standing as those opposing 'mixed' marriages during the Civil Rights movement.

[Image: 535132_10150690521932395_705822394_80266...4104_n.jpg]

The argument that homosexual marriages 'devalues' heterosexual marriage is just grasping at straws, and you cannot make an 'economics' argument out of it either. People want to get married, it's the pinnacle of monogamous relationships in society. If the rising divorce rates don't 'devalue' heterosexual marriages, I fail to see how you can make the jump that granting the same legal rights and privileges to homosexual couples somehow makes what they have 'less special'. Less exclusive certainly, but in a push for equality and inclusiveness, is that a bad thing?

The argument from traditional marriage also fails intellectually once you realize that the 'meaning' of marriage has changed, can change, and indeed will change as time goes on. It is a part of our societies, and it we evolves right along side our societies. It is no longer socially acceptable to for soldiers to take female prisoners of war as their wives and concubines against their will, and this is a good thing. It is also proof that the 'meaning' of marriage has changed, and I'd argue, changed for the better.

[Image: Marriage-12-15-10-web.jpg]

The slippery slope arguments also fail to be compelling. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, and it has been practiced in various forms across many cultures. I will say that so long as everyone involved is a happy consenting adult, then I have no problem with it. It might lead to legal headaches, but I don't think that's a reason to not allow people to be married to those they love, even if they love more than one individual in that way. The same for close family relationships; so long as both involved are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it in principal. The problem of inbreeding is a problem, and ideally such a couple would adopt or have in vitro fertilization with an anonymous donor, in lieu of the increased risk of genetic defects from inbreeding. However I support a woman's right to choice, so it would be hypocritical to want the government to regulate the breeding of couples while also wanting them to stay out of the bedroom or out of a woman's uterus. As for bestiality? Simple informed consent; animals cannot have informed consent to marriage.

National birth rates are no reason to deny people the ability to marry those that they love. You're reasoning is also as short sighted as a Wall Street stock broker or banker. The world is already overburdened by our species. If there are problems with national welfare or shortages in the workforce, for the long term viability of our species on this planet, we must have a better plan than simply breeding our way out of it. Also unless you are willing to deny marriage to heterosexual couples that either cannot have children (infertile, tied tubes, menopause, too old, etc.) or don't want to have children, then you would be hypocritical in the extreme. The only way to avoid that hypocrisy and inequality would be to endorse a totalitarian level of government; are you sure that's what you really want? The choice between totalitarian control or arbitrary discrimination? I reject both of those choices, and I instead choose inclusiveness and equality; and I would hope that upon greater reflection, you too would make that choice.


Heart is gender blind.

[Image: 066-Its-called-marriage.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-10-2013, 12:02 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Unfortunately there is no way for me to provide you all of the information in this book, but I can provide you the title and some of it's contents: http://wps.ablongman.com/ab_henslin_soci...index.html

Philo, you have suggested that marriage serves the primary purpose I reproduction. I have to disagree. Reproduction is one need fulfilled by marriage, but it is not the only way to go about that, nor is it the sole purpose for marriage. Without the convenient systems of marriage that have developed, people would still be procreating. Marriage, however, allows a stable environment for child rearing. I have not seen evidence that proves gay parents, or non-biological parents, are less capable of raising a child well. However, it would be ridiculous to claim a gay married couple is less successful than a straight couple because, in these countries we're talking about, it has not been allowed and therefore there is no data (unless you are to take those "small" studies were it is legal). I also want to point out that a gay couple is not the same as a straight married couple, as marriage gives the later the benefit of more stability, both economically and emotionally. You also claimed that no man is an island, yet you rejected presented benefits of evidence for marriage because they were individual and not societal, but if the benefits significantly improve the individual's functioning, and more importantly, the couple's ability to function as a stable unit, then that should result in benefiting society. Furthermore, the main issues for the survival of marriage have more to do with divorce and cohabitation. Gay marriage also provides the benefit of a stable relationship to socialize children. In looking at adopted children specifically, which is one choice many gay couples make, they are given a huge improvement in their ability to be productive contributing members to society. It is also more beneficial for a child to be raised by a parent and at least one other adult (regardless of familial relation, but obviously greater when it is another parent) than to be raised by a single parent - a situation which is frequent given the amount of divorce.
Going back to the importance you place on the relation between marriage and procreation, about 20% of women (may be a U.S. only statistic, not completely sure) are childless. A chunk of choose not to have children out of choice, while still being beneficial to society as a couple (and obviously getting important benefits from marriage, as already stated.). Some are infertile, which does not reduce their "parentness" of a child they raise who was born by a surrogate mother, or in a father's case, with sperm donation. Information being similar at a genetic level makes them biologically parents, but when dealing with the development of the child it is the ones who raise the child who are functionally parents.
On population: you seem to imply a negative growth rate means we are dying off. This is a silly conclusion. What makes you think this rate will remain so until we are close to dying? If your particular area has a population decline that is very high, then it may be because the people there cannot afford to support more children. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage anyway, so I don't see why you're bringing it up. There is no evidence to suggest gay people are causing the birth rate to drop or that their ability to be married would either.

Now, I'd like you to state what effects, specifically, gay marriage will have on marriage in general that can be seen as negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 12:19 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
The whole procreation thing is a red herring anyway. Benefits of marriage that people really want are not the customary shit but e.g.

Next of kin status - what happens when your loved one dies or has to have medical treatment ?
Tax benefits.
Divorce law and its protections.

Is it *so* hard to give people these things ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
01-10-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(01-10-2013 12:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  The whole procreation thing is a red herring anyway. Benefits of marriage that people really want are not the customary shit but e.g.

Next of kin status - what happens when your loved one dies or has to have medical treatment ?
Tax benefits.
Divorce law and its protections.

Is it *so* hard to give people these things ?


As a preemptive strike to anyone that would propose expanding the rights of 'civil unions' as opposed to just allowing marriage equality? I'll leave you with this...

[Image: Unequal1.jpg]

Separate is NOT equal. Even if we were to give 'civil unions' all of the same rights and protections of marriage, by the very nature of it having a different label, it would not be equal. We need to move past 'straight marriage' and 'gay marriage' and recognize marriage for what it simply is; a union of two people who love each other, regardless of their orientation or physiology.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-10-2013, 03:46 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 03:50 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 01:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 01:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  He doesn't get to decide....society decides. As a member of society, he gets a voice and nothing more.

OK then, how come one group of citizens gets to force their decision about something on another group ?

You mean by forcing citizens like me to recognize gay marriages?

The best solution to solving this problem is to prohibit the state from meddling in peoples personal affairs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 03:54 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 01:49 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It only has a little effect because there are so few gays.

If all the gay people in the world suddenly and magically turned straight, there would be no ill effects on society. However if all the straight people in the world suddenly and magically turned gay society would begin to collapse for obvious reasons.

Now if you do this thought experiment with races instead of sexuality, there is no dramatic shift. All the white people can suddenly and magically turn into black people today and there would be no lasting ill effects on society.

What this shows is that being black isn't any better than being white, but being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. Because heterosexuality is better there is nothing wrong with society viewing it as such. There is nothing wrong with society saying we want couples to pair off in heterosexual relationships and when they do, we will reward them.
So your justification for no gay marriage has turned into this ludicrous thought experiment ?

"No gay marriage because if we all turned gay society would collapse".

FFS.

I didn't say that FFS. Why do you got to make shit up?

I was making a point that society has good reason to value heterosexuality over homosexuality....and by extension value heterosexual unions more than homosexual unions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 04:10 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 01:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What this shows is that being black isn't any better than being white, but being heterosexual is better than being homosexual. Because heterosexuality is better there is nothing wrong with society viewing it as such. There is nothing wrong with society saying we want couples to pair off in heterosexual relationships and when they do, we will reward them.


Only if your sole justification for 'better' is simply the 'ability to procreate'; and between the advances of in vitro fertilization and the advent of reality TV, the simple ability to 'procreate' is nothing special... Drinking Beverage


Now raising a kid to be a well adjusted adult that can think for themselves and have empathy for their fellow creatures? Now that is special, and not gender specific...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 04:15 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 02:00 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If everyone turned gay, it would not, in any way, create the extinction of our species. We would just adapt to a very different way of doing things....as our species has and will continue to adapt to change. In fact, I would see the benefits of this type of arrangement because it would mean every child was planned and desired. Empty orphanages would make this world a better place

...

A heterosexual is not better than a homosexual as each is naturally occurring in nature. Different doesn't mean better, Mr. Star Belly Sneetch

Love the Dr Suess reference!

I already pointed out that when you give people the option to plan the conception of every child, they tend not to plan for enough babies to be born to sustain the population. In the United States the fertility rate isn't enough to sustain the population. The only reason our population grows is because of immigration. I will go further and say that the prevalence of birth control is a greater societal ill than gay marriage.

I could not find any figures on the average number of babies a gay woman bares compared to a straight woman, but I imagine its much lower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: