"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2013, 08:12 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
"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? "

Yes and no. If a man is abusing his wife, their marriage will still have no effect on mine. His infidelity or whatever doesn't diminish the value of my own marriage in any way. I know lots of couples whose relationship I would consider not to be married. Children with mistresses, households destroyed by personal economic ruin, etc. even if they have the shittiest marriage on the planet, it still doesn't diminish my personal value of marriage to my husband.

The only affect to society is that children that grow up in abusive households have a greater likelihood of committing crime. That's why abuse is considered to be a "cycle."

However, concentrate please. We are talking about the legal recognition of someone's marriage affecting the value of your own marriage. Lets stay on point.

You can try to make the causation between a homosexual couple's offspring going on to commit more crimes, but the data simply doesn't support that. Irrespective of your personal take on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cathym112's post
30-09-2013, 08:13 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 05:25 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(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?



My limit is built around consenting adults. The key point is consent, and your slippery slope argument is vacuous. 'Marriage' has changed over time, the fact that (at least in the liberal western democracies) a father cannot 'trade' his daughter to a neighbor for a cow and some chickens means that we have already redefined what 'marriage' is and can be. If enough people withing a society consent to allowing polygamous relationships, that's up to them. As for close family relationships? That's another debate for another time, and one that we can have (hopefully with science and reason at the table), but what does that have to do with same sex couples? The biggest reason to not allow close family relationships is simple genetics, we know from science and history that inbreeding can be terribly detrimental. Same sex couples, whom you don't want to allow to marry because they can't have kids themselves, are not going to be able to create inbred children themselves either. Inbreeding is a separate issue aside from marriage.




Quote:According to me, the scope of marriage is the inherent ability to reproduce.


So would you deny marriage to heterosexual couples that cannot or do not want to procreate? Is that what you are suggesting? Because that's what that statement seems to imply if carried to it's logical conclusion.




Quote:This would all devalue the monogamous heterosexual relationship, the best environment for raising children.


That's bollocks, and you should know that. A same-sex couple's marriage no more devalues heterosexual marriages than does a heterosexual couple's divorce. Are you going to suggest we stop allowing access to 'no fault' divorces because they 'devalue' heterosexual marriages? Drinking Beverage


The best relationships for raising children are those built around a loving and stable family. If that family can be operated and maintained by a homosexual couple, then so be it (I would also note that they would have a much easier time of it if their lifestyle choices weren't so discriminated against, making the children of such couples the targets of hate and intolerance). We certainly don't prevent perceived dead-beat losers from marrying and having kids because they don't offer the 'best environment for raising children', so now why impose this special restriction on homosexual couples? In the United States you can't, as it would be unconstitutional as per the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment (the same one that prevents voter discrimination for minorities).



Quote: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.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14'th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


The argument goes that states that outlaw same sex marriages, are unfairly discriminating against same-sex couples and individuals by denying them 'equal protection under the law' that is granted to heterosexual couples in a legally binding and federally recognized marriage (which grants the couple privileges and rights in such things as taxes, estates, power of attorney, etc).


A religious stance against marriage equality falls apart here because of the First Amendment (Establishment Clause). The 'tradition' argument falls apart once you realize that the meaning of 'marriage' can and has changed in the past and will change in the future; tradition alone is no reason to discriminate. The 'raising children' argument falls apart when you take into account that the government doesn't regulate childbirth requirements for heterosexual couples, and thus that argument falls afoul of the 14th Amendment.


What's left to argue for in favor of discrimination (at least in the United States)? I hope you don't take your 'slippery slope' argument into bestiality territory, because I'd hate to see you stoop that low.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
30-09-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 06:01 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(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.

If we are talking about expertise....

Jasenovac concentration camp was an extermination camp established in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during World War II. It was the only extermination camp that was not operated by the Germans,[3] and was among the largest camps in Europe.[4]

The camp was established by the governing Ustaše regime in August 1941 in marshland at the confluence of the Sava and Una rivers near the village of Jasenovac, and was dismantled in April 1945. It was "notorious for its barbaric practices and the large number of victims".[5] In Jasenovac, the majority of victims were ethnic Serbs, whom the Ustaše wanted to remove from the NDH, along with the Jews and Roma peoples.[6]

Jasenovac was a complex of five subcamps[7] spread over 210 km2 (81 sq mi) on both banks of the Sava and Una rivers. The largest camp was the "Brickworks" camp at Jasenovac, about 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Zagreb. The overall complex included the Stara Gradiška sub-camp, the killing grounds across the Sava river at Donja Gradina, five work farms, and the Uštica Roma camp.[1]

During and since World War II, there has been much debate and controversy regarding the number of victims killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex in its more than 3½ years of operation.[8] Gradually, in the 15 years after the war ended, a figure of 700,000 began to reflect conventional wisdom, although estimates ranged between 350,000 and 800,000.[8] T

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 08:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 05:25 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  According to me, the scope of marriage is the inherent ability to reproduce.
So would you deny marriage to heterosexual couples that cannot or do not want to procreate? Is that what you are suggesting? Because that's what that statement seems to imply if carried to it's logical conclusion.

Yes. One might even call it... a slippery slope.

(30-09-2013 08:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-09-2013 05:25 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  This would all devalue the monogamous heterosexual relationship, the best environment for raising children.
That's bollocks, and you should know that. A same-sex couple's marriage no more devalues heterosexual marriages than does a heterosexual couple's divorce. Are you going to suggest we stop allowing access to 'no fault' divorces because they 'devalue' heterosexual marriages? Drinking Beverage

I don't think 'devalue' is a quite the word for what he's getting at.

(30-09-2013 08:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The best relationships for raising children are those built around a loving and stable family. If that family can be operated and maintained by a homosexual couple, then so be it (I would also note that they would have a much easier time of it if their lifestyle choices weren't so discriminated against, making the children of such couples the targets of hate and intolerance). We certainly don't prevent perceived dead-beat losers from marrying and having kids because they don't offer the 'best environment for raising children', so now why impose this special restriction on homosexual couples? In the United States you can't, as it would be unconstitutional as per the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment (the same one that prevents voter discrimination for minorities).

His assertion (and it is quite the assertion) is that heterosexual partners are better for raising a child (let's nevermind for now that communal or at least extended-family child-raising is the historical human norm).

If one believes that strongly enough, it's logical to reason that it might well ought to be enforced, if other relationships were doing potential harm to the children involved (the necessary corollary!). Taking that premise, it's a valid conclusion. Extreme, but valid.

The first problem is that it's not a good premise. It's at best an unverifiable assertion - indeed, all data I've ever seen would seem to falsify it.

The second problem is that its application is uneven. One might use that line to argue against homosexual partners raising children. Valid enough, again granting the premise. But that's far from all it implies: it has its own slippery slope problems. Infertility, adoption, and divorce, to name three extremely obvious issues.

If one is attempting to make that argument, one must either oppose, equally strongly, any other marriage arrangements than "fertile inseparable heterosexual partners raising their own biological children" - many of which are currently allowed and near-universally accepted - OR, one must demonstrate somehow that gay parents would be quantifiably worse than all of the other non all-of-the-above parents.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-09-2013, 10:20 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 08:12 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You can try to make the causation between a homosexual couple's offspring going on to commit more crimes, but the data simply doesn't support that. Irrespective of your personal take on it.

I've had enough of your nonsense. I tried to be patient with you, I was telling you to focus on my arguments, not straw men, but you just can't seem to stop putting words in my mouth. You have no clue about discussing or debating. All this time, you haven't been debating me, but an image of me that you created in your mind. I don't see where you pulled out the link between homosexuality and crime from, but I certainly never brought it up, and I'm sick and tired of constantly repeating "I didn't say that." You have serious problems with reading comprehension.

As for your personal story that you wrote a few posts ago, I doubt its veracity because everything I bring up in our discussion seems to somehow be a part of your personal life. And it seems highly unlikely that it's mere coincidence. First, I mention economics - and you happen to have a degree in economics [although for some reason, you seem to think that pound sterling is the dominant currency in Europe]. Second, I mention surrogacy - and your aunt happened to be a surrogate mother to your sister. Third, we discuss gay marriages, and your brother just happens to be gay, married and with children. [you interpolated the third point in your post later] Are you trying to make people sympathize with you by appealing to compassion? You said that all four of you and your siblings have children, yet in the introductory thread you said that you don't have one yet. Fourth, I used a Ph.D. analogy, and three out of for of you and your siblings just happen to have Ph.D.-s. Why mention it, what's the point of that, unless you want to build intellectual legitimacy you don't seem to believe you have? For my part I've never felt the need to mention my education, or of my family members, as I think my arguments stand for themselves.

If you really attained a Ph.D. before your age 30, it would mean that you're an exceptional intellect. Yet - don't take this personally - your posts here don't seem to reflect that. As I've already noted, your debating and reasoning abilities are dismal. Academic people read and write theses, and I can't bring myself to believe that someone with that experience would consistently commit amateur logical fallacies like straw men, non sequitur, or argument from exception, like you have. Despite your supposed academic credentials, on this forum you have so far only discussed the plight of women, Excubitor's "holiness" and "discrimination" with me. So I'd sooner say that you have a degree in women's studies, [considering your obsession with discrimination and perception of everything as an attack on women] and that the main "academic literature" you use is chick lit and Cosmopolitan.

I might be wrong about all this, of course. But since you've so far made so many assumptions about me and my beliefs, you won't mind if I make a few as well.
Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 10:26 AM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 08:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So would you deny marriage to heterosexual couples that cannot or do not want to procreate? Is that what you are suggesting? Because that's what that statement seems to imply if carried to it's logical conclusion.

(30-09-2013 10:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The second problem is that its application is uneven. One might use that line to argue against homosexual partners raising children. Valid enough, again granting the premise. But that's far from all it implies: it has its own slippery slope problems. Infertility, adoption, and divorce, to name three extremely obvious issues.

Cljr and EvolutionKills:

I explained the problems with the traditional definition of marriage in the previous posts:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid387286
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid387316

I'm aware that it's not perfect, but I still consider it the best available, for the reasons I wrote there.
Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(30-09-2013 10:26 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Cljr and EvolutionKills:

I explained the problems with the traditional definition of marriage in the previous posts:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid387286
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid387316

I'm aware that it's not perfect, but I still consider it the best available, for the reasons I wrote there.

But that's still arbitrary. Both the rules and the exceptions:
"Marriage is for people who can procreate - except sometimes it's okay when they can't and sometimes it's not okay when they can't". Also, consanguinuity is a total red herring.

You're saying that one type of "deviation" (for lack of a better word) from your ideal norm is okay and another type isn't. For... no particular reason I can tell.

(and that's notwithstanding the fact that it will shortly be possible for any two people to conceive a child with their genetic information)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-09-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
I had a child, asshole. He died.

You also have a problem with reading comprehension I see. I didn't say that you said that. I'm following the logical progression of your arguments. It'd called debating and its exactly what I'm doing. My personal insights do not negate the debate at hand.

And btw - thanks for bringing the tone down a notch with insulting my ability to read and think. I notice that the minute I tell you to "concentrate please" - a phrase you said to me - suddenly the nature of your tone took a nosedive. Condescension to make your point is fine but if I do it, I'm the asshole? Got it.

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

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

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.

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

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
30-09-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
I'd love to know on what authority you decide who gets to marry whom. Are gays somehow non-citizens ? Are they less allowed to determine their own lives than heterosexual people ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-09-2013, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013 11:57 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
1) I don't think the pound is the dominant currency in Europe. Its an example of one system of currency in Europe. As you know, Europe consists of many countries and did not make an assumption as to which one you were from. I made the mistake of assuming, based on your behavior, that you were religious. I opted not to repeat that mistake by assuming you were in Italy for Ireland. I don't see how my picking the wrong currency denomination makes that a bad mark on my argument. Jeez. Sorry I didn't pick EURO instead.

2) I mentioned the PhDs as an example of how an environment dictates a child's success - not their biological parents.

3) a lot of people who support gay rights have someone they love that's gay and know first hand that it is not a choice. Not a far reach.

4) I never said I had a PhD. I am the one with the masters. I find that if I were to focus too heavily on technical jargon, thesis, and research papers, I would lose the majority of the audience. I do not presume anyone is familiar with causation vs correlation, for example, (as you clearly don't). To think otherwise makes me appear condescending and intellectually superior. Two qualities that will make anyone lose interest in speaking with you. I don't "dumb down" my terms and concepts, rather I use layman's terms so that equal participation in a debate irrespective of one's educational background can be afforded.

5) I debate issues that are important to me, such as women's struggles, human rights, etc. how is this any different than what you do? Why are you here if not to speak on an intellectually stimulating level regarding subjects and concepts that interest you? Pot, meet kettle.

6) most everyone has personal experiences regarding topics. You mentioned the war and your conclusion that the population is decreasing in YOUR area. How is it only ok for you to speak about how the benefit of homosexual marriage will be detrimental to you, yet I'm not allowed to discuss my personal experiences and conclusions for me?

7) should I have to list all of my personal experiences BEFORE I enter a debate so as it will not appear that I am making shit up for a point? Very well. Born female, white, in October, like reading, running, yoga and enjoy the outdoors, was catholic, now atheist, attended college, fought off a rapist by punching him in the throat when I was 22, graduated college and graduate with a masters from UB in NY although I initially loved medicine and wanted to be a doctor but puked too much during cadaver labs and changed majors, worked as a fraud investigator of white collar crime for a regulator in NYC and DC, now run my own business, am married with no living children, seeking fertility treatments to conceive, I'm physically fit, don't smoke, drink socially, have big fake boobs to correct a deformed breast, have gay family members, have a family that doesn't include biologically related persons, dad died when I was 20, mom lives in FL and still practices medicine, uncle died from lung cancer from agent orange when I was 29, I do charity work and run a search and rescue K-9 unit, we look for missing persons within my community, I am a certified EMT as part of this work, one of my neighbors is gay and married, no children (yet). Anything else I need to disclose to satisfy any argument?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: