"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2013, 07:58 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So by that logic, infertile couples, couples past child bearing age, and couples who simply do not want children should not be granted the same benefits as marriage.

Already explained above.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Additionally, according to the Bible, the laws of nature were suspended for an immaculate conception.

Relevance? I'm not religious.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I do not understand this argument at all. You actually do not have the ability to say whatever you want. You cannot yell fire in a theater, nor are you allowed to lie under oath. So no, free speech does not cover that you are allowed to speak, it also covers what you are speaking.

...or what you're not allowed to speak. "Speech" in this context alludes to an expression of a view or a position on something, I believe, not lying.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are the one making the extraordinary claim that homosexual relationships can't have the same social benefits as a heterosexual one. Therefore you have the burden of proof.

No.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  But very well. Here is an excerpt regarding the social science aspects to marriage.

Benefits of Marriage
Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.
Spouses have or are entitled to:
visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
the ability to create life insurance trusts
tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse
discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
visiting rights in jail
Social scientists have also found many positive benefits for married couples and families, including fewer incidents of poverty and mental health problems in families where the parents are married rather than simply cohabitating. Many studies also support the idea that children living with married parents do better in a variety of ways than children in any other living arrangement [ref].

Please explain to me, what exists in those examples of social benefits that cannot exist for a homosexual couple. And children can't be one of them, because adoption is just as available to them as an infertile couple.

All these benefits you listed here are individual benefits, not societal ones. The only exception is the last one (I colored it red), but I assume (since I don't see the original source) that it refers to heterosexual marriages.
If it is so, it only corroborates my statement that children generally benefit from being raised in such an environment.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Marriage has NOT been the monogamous for 2,000 years. Its been polygamous, and existed in a sense where women were property, arranged for political alliances and tribes.

In the Western civilization? Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was speaking from the Western point of view.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I also want you to define "working" because the divorce rate in religious communities (below the bible belt in the US) is higher than in the more liberal states.

Again, for some reason, you seem to be assuming that I'm religious. Marriage in principle works, although it could be said that it's facing a crisis at the moment.
I've explained why - I'll elaborate in the following paragraphs, because it seems like you misunderstood me.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Apples, meet oranges. Oranges, meet apples. Having the right to marry who you want is NOT like driving.

Of course it isn't. That's why it's called an analogy. What both have in common though, is that the state enforces certain limitations for some reasons.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You still did not address the fact that homosexual couples can provide an equally loving and stable household as heterosexual couples.

If you look back through my posts, you'll see that I never actually claimed that they can't. But if you insist on discussing it, I'll let you provide a reference to what you call a fact.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Lets deal with this in two parts. The first is disspell your incorrect notion that all women want children.

There's no need to dispel it because I never claimed that. Huh

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Women are choosing not to have children because it is becoming more socially acceptable not to. My grandmother is a prime example. She never wanted to get married, nor did she want children. Social pressures however, eventually forced her into it. (BTW, not all men want children either). If all women wanted children, there wouldn't be this thing called adoption. They don't come from a puppy mill....these are women that got pregnant and didn't want the child!.

Legitimate. But let's keep in mind that social pressure works both ways. Just as society used to pressure women into having children, we could say that today it does the opposite and discourages them from having children. For example, being a stay-at-home mother is considered contemptible these days, although there might be women who want to do that. She'll read in magazines and on the Internet that marriage is uncool, that children are boring and demanding, that she won't be able to live her life to the fullest, etc. But not all people are the same. Just a note.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Second - are you honestly blaming WOMEN for the shortage of pensions and social security systems?

No. No I clearly stated that it's the society's attitude. Concentrate, please. Nobody is attacking you.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Perhaps you have heard of the concept between causation and correlation. While there is a correlation between more women in general entering the workforce and the additional stress on the pension and social security systems, it does not conclude CAUSATION.

I claimed that the stress on the pension and social security systems is caused by a decreasing population, not an increasing number of women in the workforce. In fact, the problem is the decreasing workforce.

But then again, I'm speaking from a European perspective, which may be different than the American one.

(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  you have completely forgotten that longer life spans, poor investment, bad economy, and influx of social security claims as the baby boomers reach retirement age are the causation. Because social security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme, the new payments used to pay the old, there isn't enough people in the X & Y generation combined to support the population of baby boomers.

This could be a good topic for a discussion. But on some other occasion - there are too many topics at hand at this moment.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  First of all, civil unions do not give the spouse the right to make medical decisions or be considered next of kin.

Depends on the country and its legislation. I definitely think they should.

(28-09-2013 05:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In general, your intolerance speaks a lot to your fear of change. This was evident when blacks/whites tried to marry, and also when women were trying to vote.

This was unnecessary. Let's not bring this down to a personal level. We've been doing well so far, let's continue in the same fashion.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2013 09:35 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 07:58 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Marriage has NOT been the monogamous for 2,000 years. Its been polygamous, and existed in a sense where women were property, arranged for political alliances and tribes.

In the Western civilization? Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was speaking from the Western point of view.

What "western civilization" were you speaking of when you date it back for 2,000 years? You couldn't have been speaking of Americans since they weren't around back then. And Native americans arranged marriages between tribes as political unions as I stated before. So, when you refer to "western civilizations" existing 2,000 years ago, clearly you are also referring to Roman and Greek martial relationships which also included lots and LOTS of homosexual relations. In fact, the root word of the word Lesbian, refers the the island of lesbos. Also, Helen of Troy was a political marriage as she was considered property.

My argument still stands. Marriage changes over time and continues to do so.


(29-09-2013 07:58 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 06:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Apples, meet oranges. Oranges, meet apples. Having the right to marry who you want is NOT like driving.

Of course it isn't. That's why it's called an analogy. What both have in common though, is that the state enforces certain limitations for some reasons.

an analogy compares two related concepts. making an analogy of marriage and driving is like making an analogy regarding the similarities between lamb and tuna fish. But if you must - as I mentioned before, age restrictions CHANGE, as they have in the drinking age, and since you compared them, therefore marriage limitations must also change.


(29-09-2013 07:58 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Legitimate. For example, being a stay-at-home mother is considered contemptible these days, although there might be women who want to do that. She'll read in magazines and on the Internet that marriage is uncool, that children are boring and demanding, that she won't be able to live her life to the fullest, etc. But not all people are the same. Just a note.

Where are you getting this from? I would argue that if more and more women are entering in and stayin in the workforce against their desire (a point I disagree with), it has more to do with the increasing cost of living and child-rearing. The US estimates, that on average, a child will cost a couple close to $1,000,000 over its lifetime. Those costs are not rising in tandem with inflation. Therefore, women are staying in the workforce because a normal household cannot be supported on 1 income.

You also fail to address one very important contributing factor. Births are decreasing overall because infant mortality is decreasing. ie, there is no need for more children because these children are living.

(29-09-2013 07:58 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  I claimed that the stress on the pension and social security systems is caused by a decreasing population, not an increasing number of women in the workforce. In fact, the problem is the decreasing workforce.

No. You made a circular argument that more women in the workforce=less children which in turn = decreasing workforce. Also, The population is NOT decreasing. The rate of which it is increasing is decreasing. That's a big difference. Population growth is decreasing, but the overall population is continually increasing. According to the WHO, our population will continue to increase until we can no longer produce enough food to feed the population.

Also, I think this also has more to do with overall responsible decisions rather than women simply being in the workforce. People are now aware of the ramifications of their decisions on the next generation. We no longer pollute our environments without the consideration to the next generation, and we are no longer having children without consideration to the ability to support them. Overpopulation is a bad thing.

In fact, I'd argue that people that have children beyond their ability to support create a greater indirect impact to society than homosexual couples that have no children.

Also, please refer to my other post regarding infertile couples and homosexual couples. Homosexuality is not a choice. You are born that way. So they must be taken with the same benefits as infertile couples (who are also, born that way).[/i]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 09:33 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 06:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No. If the main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate and you use that as a reason against gay marriage , then, by following your logic heterosexual couples who don't desire or are unable to have children for medical reasons should not be permitted to get married also.

How would you police heterosexual people who don't desire or can't have children from marrying? There isn't an easy, cost effective way of doing this. Women have been know to naturally conceive as old as 73.

On the otherhand homosexual couples at any age have never been know to naturally produce an offspring....so this is something much easier to police.

The ability to police a moral behavior is irrelevant to the making of laws. For example, sodomy, mostly in reference to anal sex (although also oral), is illegal in a few of the states in the US. It is still difficult to police and enforce, yet it still happens. In fact, if NY disallowed sodomy, I know half of my girlfriends would be in jail because, anal sex is enjoyable for heterosexual couples as well.

How many women have naturally conceived as old as 73? I think there has been ONE documented case. We agree that is an extreme exception and not considered in part of a general argument as there are exceptions in almost every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Marriage... it's not the *custom* gay people want access to, it's the legal stuff. Or some may want the custom too, fuck if I care.

Who are you guys to deny them that ? The basis you've given is pretty piss poor.

"They're incapable of reproducing".
So the fuck what ?

"It's not a right according to the Euro court of whatever".
So Euro court of fuckery is a spineless bunch of twats. Regardless of their legal dickery, it *should* be a right, if equal treatment before the law is enshrined in their constitution.

Maybe I should make an analogy. I tried once with inter-racial marriage but you didn't get it, so round two: "White men may never ever fucking marry whom they love ever. This is equal treatment because it applies to everyone equally. If you're a white man, sucks to be you." If you replace "white man" with "gay", that's exactly what you said about equal treatment before the law for gay people.

"Kids will have shitty lives".
Data or STFU. How'dja determine that ? Suck your thumb ?

"It's not part of the custom for the past 2000 years".
Cathy answered that - *what* fucking custom ? And for bonus, how come you fuckers now control what's accepted as customary ? We will change the custom, that's all.

And *still*. Justify why *you* should have a say where someone else sticks their junk ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
29-09-2013, 10:22 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Going back to the original...

Saying "that's how I was raised" about anything implies that you haven't managed to think for yourself or learn anything. It's an excuse.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
29-09-2013, 11:00 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 10:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Marriage... it's not the *custom* gay people want access to, it's the legal stuff. Or some may want the custom too, fuck if I care.

Who are you guys to deny them that ? The basis you've given is pretty piss poor.

"They're incapable of reproducing".
So the fuck what ?

"It's not a right according to the Euro court of whatever".
So Euro court of fuckery is a spineless bunch of twats. Regardless of their legal dickery, it *should* be a right, if equal treatment before the law is enshrined in their constitution.

Maybe I should make an analogy. I tried once with inter-racial marriage but you didn't get it, so round two: "White men may never ever fucking marry whom they love ever. This is equal treatment because it applies to everyone equally. If you're a white man, sucks to be you." If you replace "white man" with "gay", that's exactly what you said about equal treatment before the law for gay people.

"Kids will have shitty lives".
Data or STFU. How'dja determine that ? Suck your thumb ?

"It's not part of the custom for the past 2000 years".
Cathy answered that - *what* fucking custom ? And for bonus, how come you fuckers now control what's accepted as customary ? We will change the custom, that's all.

And *still*. Justify why *you* should have a say where someone else sticks their junk ?

I have tried my best to keep this discussion respectful and focused. However, we are not getting anywhere with this. If you want to believe that expert jurists are "a spineless bunch of twats" in a "court of fuckery,"
that's your personal matter. I, however, don't need to continue this, as you've twisted and caricatured almost everything I've put hours of effort into writing.
I honestly don't understand why someone would lose their temper over an Internet debate. Huh

I think I've articulated everything I wanted to say about this topic so far anyway. As for my discussion with Cathy, it's drifted into the fields of economics and demographics.
Those are interesting topics to me, so I hope we continue discussing them in the future. Not now however, because this debate has worn me down somewhat. I hope you understand.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Fair enough. Sorry for lowering the tone. Lost the plot a bit there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 11:16 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 11:14 AM)morondog Wrote:  Fair enough. Sorry for lowering the tone. Lost the plot a bit there.

No hard feelings.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
29-09-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 06:55 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  No. If the main advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to procreate and you use that as a reason against gay marriage , then, by following your logic heterosexual couples who don't desire or are unable to have children for medical reasons should not be permitted to get married also.
Institution of marriage has very little to do with children before there are any as a result of marriage, getting married is not an obligation to have children, nor the capability to have children is a condition to get married.
Two 80 year old people can get married even if it's evident that they can't have children of their own. Man and women who can't have children for medical reasons can also get married, so, your point that not being capable to have children of their own is a reason for not allowing gay marriage is invalid.

You are arguing from exceptions - I have already explained this line of reasoning using driver's license analogy. The fact that there are adults who are not capable of driving, and minors who are, doesn't invalidate the general rule that the minimum age for attaining a driver's license is 18 (age may vary by country). It is the simplest solution.

In the same way, we accept the general statement that a heterosexual married couple will likely have children. Some certainly won't - but finding out who will, and allowing marriage only to those couples would be costly, complicated and most of all, intrusive. How would you be sure that they would have children? Would they have to sign a contract with the state? Also, to know if a couple is infertile, the state would have to examine their medical records which would be unethical and would violate their privacy. After all, a heterosexual couple may be prevented from having a child because of reasons like medical conditions* or age - while a homosexual couple by definition cannot have their own child by natural means. So in the end, the simplest solution is to simply grant the privilege of marriage to heterosexual couples generally.

* Web Health Centre defines infertility as a condition. http://www.webhealthcentre.com/DiseaseCo...nfert.aspx

(29-09-2013 06:21 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  It is semantics, but everything you said here applies to the marriage as well, your right is to get married, and the state shouldn't be concerned with who you are marrying,

Again, by default, nobody has the right to get married. The government grants those privileges according to the benefits the society might have from them. It's like granting subsidies.

I understand what you are saying, it seems that you don't understand what I am.
What I am saying is that marriage is not about the possibility or probability of having children.
I am married, I wasn't able to get married based on likelihood of producing children. Nobody asked us will we have children, it doesn't matter. It is not assumed that I am getting married in order to have children. Marriage is a social contract between two adults, it has nothing to do with children. Children who are born outside of marriage have , by the law, the same rights as the children that are born in marriage.
Institution of marriage does not exist because of children. I don't know how else to say it.
And your analogy with the driving license is not good. Correct analogy would be not
allowing somebody to obtain driving license based on he fact that he can't afford a car.
Perfect analogy of your position is not allowing somebody to go to the beach because he can't swim. As swimming is not the only reason for going to the beach and it is not necessary to swim once you are on the beach, in the same way having children is not the only reason people get married, and it is not necessary to have children when you are married.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2013, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2013 11:45 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Philo - you said you are not religious. My mistake. The way you are okay with discrimination of an entire population of people mirrors the behavior of a lot of religious people. I genuinely can't understand how you would be supportive of a culture that discriminates against an entire group of people based on an arbitrary concept. black and whites being "separate but equal" for example as an apt comparison to civil unions and marriages being "separate but equal". I also don't understand how you don't see this as discrimination. I honestly don't understand. You are, admittedly, the first atheist I've ever met who didn't support equal rights for everyone. Please help me understand where you are coming from personally. Surely you have the capacity for self reflection.


I would argue that - for the most part - marriage is a state of mind more than anything else. There are plenty of people who are legally married that destroy the concept and sanctity of that marriage on a daily basis. The legality of that marriage (which is nothing more than a recognition of that union) does not alter the behavior of the people in that union. Alternatively, there are many people whose union is not recognized that model a concept of marriage more beautifully than those whose unions are recognized. I know a gay couple that have been together for 50 years, who have been more committed to each other than people that have only been married for 1 year. The validation of your union does not dictate or change your behavior within that union.

From what I understood you to say is that any change to the definition of marriage undermines what you consider to be marriage and the only reason anyone would object to that change is if it somehow interfered with your identity. I'll elaborate and please correct me if I am wrong.

Lets say you have $1,000,000 (or pounds if you prefer). Not every has $1,000,000, and if you have this, you are considered by societal minimums to be wealthy and therefore you would consider yourself to be wealthy. Wealthy people get VIP status at hotels, bars, etc. They get tax benefits due to the sophistication of loopholes that non-wealthy don't get. Now, if suddenly, that minimum of $1,000,000 is suddenly changed to - say - $500,000 - a lot more people are considered to be wealthy. Now, suddenly everyone is able to join the club and therefore it loses its exclusivity and therefore value. If everyone is getting into the VIP section, its no longer VIP is it? Its just the regular section.

This seems to be your premise. That any change in the definition of marriage changes the inherent meaning of marriage. Except that, as I've stated above, there are plenty of people who are legally married that destroy the concept of that marriage on a daily basis. Therefore, it stands that marriage is a state of mind, and if you want to promote fidelity and security as a family unit as a state of mind, I applaud that. However, allowing more people into the club will not change the dynamic of marriage you are trying to uphold, which is, at the root of it, based on love....not on sperm count and egg availability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: