"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 01:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  All the arguments for marriage rights for gays contain an implied assumption that gay marriage offers as much a benefit to society as heterosexual marriage. There really is no good reason to think this is the case. For it to be the case the benefits of both kinds of marriages would have to be exactly equal in the amount of benefit they provide to society.

Why should it be that the benefits of both kinds of marriage just happen to be exactly equal? Just because we want it to be? Well that is ludicrous. We can want God to exist too, but just wanting it isn't going to make it happen. God exist or He doesn't. Reality is what reality is and the procreative advantage of heterosexual unions adds a whole lot of societal utility. Because of that, society has good reason to place heterosexuality on a higher pedestal than homosexuality.


Is the hateful and divisive speech of the Westboro Baptist Church doing as much good for society as the inclusive and insightful speeches given by Martin Luther King Jr? I'd say they aren't. However both are granted equal protection under the law. Indeed many opposing the Civil Rights movement in the south would have had issue with the equality espoused by King. People should be allowed to marry those that they love (consenting adults of any sexual or gender orientation), and to say that they cannot, is denying them equal protection under the law. It's a violation of their rights as granted and protected by the 14'th Amendment.

Their marriages' contribution to society is a non-factor. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 05:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  heywood - I like to be on top. I hope this won't be a problem for you

We can rock-paper-scissors for who gets the top bunk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Think about it this logically...denying a gay man the right to marry another man isn't going to compel him to marry a woman and reproduce. You are born gay. Allowing gay marriage doesn't prevent or encourage behavior.
then.

A lot of gay men married and had children because they thought society expected it from them.

But we aren't talking just about purely homosexual people. A lot of people are bisexual and could enter into long term heterosexual relationships or long term homosexual relationships. If heterosexual relationships offer more value to society, shouldn't society steer these folks toward heterosexual relationships?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 04:06 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 02:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A lot of gay men married and had children because they thought society expected it from them.

But we aren't talking just about purely homosexual people. A lot of people are bisexual and could enter into long term heterosexual relationships or long term homosexual relationships. If heterosexual relationships offer more value to society, shouldn't society steer these folks toward heterosexual relationships?

And if it's shown that a strong education, a secular society, and a de-emphasis on religion leads to happier and more successful countries (as evidenced in northern Europe)? Well then we should surely use 'society' to encourage them all to abandon their faith in favor rationality and empiricism? To embrace logic, reason, and evidence instead of faith, superstition, and other forms of magical thinking? Right? Consider

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 05:25 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I still don't understand what it is about someone else having what you have that diminishes it? Your behavior, and thought process, and I mean no disrespect, is immature. It's MY toy! He can't have the SAME toy!!

Value of something is inversely proportional to its availability. That's one of the basic postulates of economics.

Let's say you have $ 1 million. That's considered a lot of money by most people. Now let's say that the FED, for some reason, decided to print $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and started dumping them from helicopters over American cities. In a matter of hours, your $1M would only be valuable as toilet paper.

Or, let's say that you have a Ph.D. That would be a big advantage for your career as you'd be able to work at least as a senior assistant at a university, or be an important official etc. But if universities started handing out Ph.D.-s to anyone simply to achieve "educational equality," soon enough there wouldn't be much value in your academic title, despite how hard you had worked to earn it.

But yeah, I guess I'm just being immature. Drinking Beverage

(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also, you drawing an incorrect assumption based on your emotions that legalization of gay marriage equals less children.

I'm not assuming that. Some reading comprehension, please! No

(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  People will have children regardless of their situations if they want them.

Somewhat true, but not entirely. A government may encourage or discourage people from having children by implementing expansionary or restrictive population policies respectively.

(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Think about it this logically...denying a gay man the right to marry another man isn't going to compel him to marry a woman and reproduce. You are born gay. Allowing gay marriage doesn't prevent or encourage behavior.

Nor do I think it does. That wasn't my point. My point was that population renewal should be rewarded.

(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Ironically, you are wrong about the decrease to the population. While there may be pockets of populations that are decreasing - that has more to do with the environment and economy than it does anything else. People have less children when the economy is bad. But that doesn't mean the world population is decreasing. As I said before, the rate of growth is not the same thing as growth

Pockets?

[Image: Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg]

To maintain a population, total fertility rate should be about 2,1 (replacement rate).
You can easily see on the map that most of Europe is below replacement rate, even in spite of immigration. Most of the world doesn't have a high rate either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sov...ility_rate
European Union 1,58
Russia 1,61
Switzerland 1,53
Portugal 1,51
Spain 1,48
Germany 1,42
Austria 1,42
Greece 1,41
Italy 1,41
Hungary 1,41
Poland 1,32
Czech Republic 1,29
[...]

Also, this problem appeared at the end of the demographic transition, which was long before the current recession. Bad economy may be a factor, but not a crucial one.

(29-09-2013 04:16 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  So if homosexual couples contribute less to society by raising less children, it would be economically detrimental for the government to allow those couples access to marriage benefits?

It wouldn't necessarily be economically detrimental (although it probably would), it's just that there wouldn't be a good reason to do so.
One correction though - they don't raise any of their own children.

(29-09-2013 04:58 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  With gay marriage, every benefit of traditional marriage is there. The only difference is that when it's two men, a third person has to have their baby, and when it's two women, both of them can have babies. That's it.

And that's all? Wow... and I thought there was a significant difference... [sarcasm]

The 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.

To compare that moral disgrace to a traditional, biological parenthood is a slap in the face to hundreds of millions of people. You say that this harms no one, yet you ignore the children, who are the ones most important here. In this case, they are deliberately sentenced to growing up without both biological parents before they are even conceived. They are denied their natural environment for growing up, just because of someone's selfish whims. "They want to have a child, but they weren't born that way." Well, "they" are by default born with functioning sexual organs, like everyone else. The fact that they prefer putting them somewhere where they couldn't produce a child, is not my problem, or the state's. I'd really like to be a football player in a world-class club. But guess what - I was born in a way that prevents me from being one - I don't have the talent, or ability for that. Now, I could grow a pair and become something else in my life, or I could go to the courts and try to force a club to accept me into their first 11. When I screw up that club's chances by playing horribly, and anger its fans, I could sue them collectively for "hate crimes." And then I'd be wondering why there are people who don't understand me.

(30-09-2013 01:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People should be allowed to marry those that they love (consenting adults of any sexual or gender orientation), and to say that they cannot, is denying them equal protection under the law. It's a violation of their rights as granted and protected by the 14'th Amendment.

The problem with this is that you defined a limit on who can marry, just as I did.

According to me, the scope of marriage is the inherent ability to reproduce.
According to you, the scope of marriage is "love" and consent.

A disadvantage of your definition is that it's a slippery slope - according to it, we could also legalize marriage between multiple people, or marriage between close relatives, just because they're based on "love" and consent. This would all devalue the monogamous heterosexual relationship, the best environment for raising children.

As for the law - we also have an anti-discrimination clause in the European Convention on Human Rights (incidentally or not, the article is also number 14).
The ECtHR has ruled, however, that gay marriage is not a human right.

Has your Supreme Court ever ruled on that issue?
Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 06:01 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(29-09-2013 04:53 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Yeah...and why stop with the retirees? Mentally handicapped ,physically disabled , gays obviously, jews , gipsies ...in fact, only tall blond people with blue eyes should have benefits , and they should have all the benefits...they should be the only ones allowed to reproduce... and soon we'll have..oh, wait.

"Of the 16,700 Jewish people in Serbia and the Banat, 15,000 were killed. In total, it is estimated that approximately 80,000 people were killed from 1941 to 1944 in concentration camps in Nedić's Serbia.[96]
Harald Turner, the chief of German military occupation forces in Serbia, declared in August 1942, that the "Jewish question" in Serbia had been "liquidated" and that Serbia was the first country in Europe to be Judenfrei; free of Jews.
[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_%281...mographics

No wonder you're familiar with the procedure. Drinking Beverage It's not something to be proud of though.
Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 02:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-09-2013 03:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Think about it this logically...denying a gay man the right to marry another man isn't going to compel him to marry a woman and reproduce. You are born gay. Allowing gay marriage doesn't prevent or encourage behavior.
then.

A lot of gay men married and had children because they thought society expected it from them.

But we aren't talking just about purely homosexual people. A lot of people are bisexual and could enter into long term heterosexual relationships or long term homosexual relationships. If heterosexual relationships offer more value to society, shouldn't society steer these folks toward heterosexual relationships?

I think society doesn't have a say in someone else's relationship! You are overstating the effect on society as a whole. It actually has very little effect. Do you care whether your neighbors are married or not? If they have kids? If they fight? If they have sex on the dining room table? No. You shouldn't care. It has no effect on you whatsoever!

While there are a few benefits, those benefits are so indirect to you that's its not really a consideration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 06:53 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
It's probably widely used because if someone called them out on it and explained why it is such a bad excuse, their face would probably go blank and the information would go in one ear and out the other! Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:16 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 06:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think society doesn't have a say in someone else's relationship! You are overstating the effect on society as a whole. It actually has very little effect. Do you care whether your neighbors are married or not? If they have kids? If they fight? If they have sex on the dining room table? No. You shouldn't care. It has no effect on you whatsoever!

Doesn't it?! Well, what if it's an abusive relationship? If you saw your neighbor beating his wife to death, wouldn't you agree that it would be your responsibility to call the police? What if they abused their child, or denied it food or medicine? "It has no effect on you whatsoever," as you say, but would you stand aside or act like a responsible human being and take necessary action?

(30-09-2013 06:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  While there are a few benefits, those benefits are so indirect to you that's its not really a consideration.

If you thought outside your solipsistic mindset for just a moment, you'd realize that it doesn't always have to be about "me" or "you." Drinking Beverage
Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 07:30 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
Look, according to an article in the washington post:

Still, there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in how well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development. What matters more, researchers found, is the quality of parenting and the family’s economic well-being.

“I can tell you we’re never going to get the perfect science, but what you have right now is good-enough science,” said Benjamin Siegel, a professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine. “The data we have right now are good enough to know what’s good for kids.”

Siegel co-wrote a report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics last week when it came out in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. The group looked at more than 80 studies, books and articles conducted over 30 years and concluded that legalizing same-sex marriage would strengthen families and benefit children.

The best study, Siegel said, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which began in 1986 with 154 lesbian mothers who conceived children through artificial insemination. A recent look at 78 offspring found that the children did fine — better, even, than children in a similar study involving more diverse families.

Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the academy’s conclusions are premature. They point to some recent studies, including one from Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor from the University of Texas at Austin. Regnerus, who could not be reached for this article, found that adults who reported being raised by a person who had a homosexual experience were more likely to be on welfare or experience sexual abuse."

Another article from Boston University that expands on Siegel. The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,” Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: “The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.”

Siegel and Perrin’s report also cites three studies done in the United States and Europe—two involving lesbian mothers and the third one involving men and women whose adult children reported they’d had a parent involved in a same-sex relationship. Those studies similarly found no difference in outcomes for the children as compared with children of heterosexual parents."

Since its social science, there are always exceptions and fluctuations, but on the whole, children of homosexual people do as well as heterosexual people.

Philo - I have my degree in economics. I do not need you to explain. Except that the value of marriage has nothing to do with its exclusivity! It is not a tangible item whose value increases with supply and demand. Nonsense. It has intrinsic value because of its emotional factors, but how sad is your relationship that an inclusion of a group of people into your club diminishes it for you? We agreed that homosexuality was not a choice. Homosexuals have been around for a long time. Gay men were wrecking their marriages because they were pressured into marrying a woman instead of being accepted as a homosexual. Suicide rates among the gay community is staggering! (how is that helping your population?) I find it very sad that you consider someone's marriage to lesson the validity of yours. How unsecure in your relationship can you get? As I said before, my gay neighbors being married has zero effect on my marriage. None. I do not look at them and think, "oh man....everyone is getting married now. My marriage isn't meaningful anymore since everyone can do it." Thats ridiculous.

People do not need incentive to have children. The beauty of reproduction is that - at the heart of it - is a biological urge. If you have the urge, you will have children. If you don't, you won't. Most people respond to negative consequences (ie, being too expensive to have more children) more than they respond to positive incentives. Allowing the acceptance of all kinds of families will remove the negative consequences.

[Image: 360px-Population_curve.svg.png]

Does this look like our poor planet is headed towards depopulation? Negative. As I said before. We have quadrupled our population in the 20th century. We are no worse for ware. In fact, there are too many people on this planet for our own good. As the population continues to grow, we will literally kill ourselves in the effort to survive.

Here is an article in the LA times regarding overpopulation.

Overpopulation is BAD


Adoption, surrogacy, egg, and sperm donation is NOT human trafficking. You are being overdramatic and minimizing ACTUAL human trafficking. Why is it okay for infertile couples to do to these extremes to produce a child but not a homosexual couple? ridiculous. childish. stupid rationale.

And my sister is not my biological sister. My father was born sterile. So sperm donation was used until my mother ruptured her uterus when she gave birth to her second child and had a hysterectomy. She used eggs, and a surrogate (my aunt) to carry her next 2 children. There was no "payment" for her children...but being pregnant is no picnic, so my aunt was compensated for her medical bills, and her time going to and from doctors appointments. My sister doesn't - and never - considered my mother not to be her mother. Family is not always about biology.

My parents were both MDs. Everyone in my family (4 children total) went to college. 3 got their PhDs, one a masters. All 4 children went on to get married, have children and in general be happy and productive members of society. Oh yeah, and my brother is gay. He has two beautiful children with his husband, Mike. You wanna know what these degenerate parents do? They read bedtime stories, they go to school, they have after school activities, they play with friends and outside. Their family is no different than any other family. The only difference is that these children have to be taught how to handle the judgment of other people simply because they have "two daddies"

As soon as society becomes accepting of other people different from them, the better children will be. Children accept differences without question. Why can't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: