Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/2/13 05:32 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/1/13 02:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are not equal any more than children are equal to adults or men are equal to women.

I stopped reading here.

Now I know not to take Smilez seriously on anything anymore.

Few people nowadays are capable of "handling" such a blunt claim even as they live their lives more or less operating on the assumption that people are different and therefore should be treated differently.

So let me put it to you this way. In what meaningful sense are people equal?

1. Almost no one believes that people are descriptively equal. Nearly every week scientists are discovering the physiological basis behind well known steriotypical differences between groups of people, some differences being easier to talk about than others.

2. No one truly believes in equal treatment at a personal level.

Trying to treat everyone equally would entail you treating strangers the same way you treat friends, family, or spouses. It would also entail treating children the same as adults. There are reasons why it is considered normal to behave differently towards and in the presence of different groups, you could probably list them. Each reason you give is a repudiation of the notion that people are equal *in your eyes*.

"Treating women the same as men" sounds lovely in theory but this is principally because the people who mouth such a platitude are only thinking about more superficial differences like income and careers. Try taking off the rose colored glasses and imagine if, for example, men acted towards and around women the exact same way they act around men. Try to imagine the execration that would follow if someone tried to create a female Peter Gryphon. Most Feminists today would not openly advocate such a thing and I suspect any man who tried to treat a woman "Just like a man" would be accused of sexism

3. Equal Treatment Under the Law

This is the weakest form of equality and the closest to being reasonable, since *in theory* the best way to maximize public cooperation with the law is to whenever possible make sure that all citizens are bound by the same rules. But yet again people make exceptions without giving it a second thought, and the reasons for these exceptions would strike most modern people as quite reasonable.

The most obvious of these exceptions are differences in legal treatment between minors and adults. [This, by the way, is precisely why I said that children are not equal to adults, the law does not recognize children as being capable of making

Now if you ask me I think expectations for children are being lowered in large part because our society has prolonged child adolescence into the mid 20s, whereas in earlier times someone could be doing everything that was expected of an adult as early as 14 or 15.

Elderly people whom physicians regard as "incompetent" for medical reasons are then required to have some trusted other co-sign their legal documents.

We don't treat men and women equally in divorce courts. [We assume, rightly or wrongly, that either 1. The woman is a more essential caretaker to the child or 2. The woman is a superior caretaker to the child] or in the Military Draft.

4. The root of egalitarian thinking

There are two main reasons I think people treat equality as such a great thing despite continually repudiating it through their actions.

A. The Major reason is subconscious. Non-equality is associated with things people in this day and age are naturally predisposed to dislike. The three most prevalent of these are The Holocaust, Slavery, and Jim Crow, followed closely behind in fourth by apartheid, and perhaps also the Japanese internment camps. To not support equality is to support these things.

Of course much of what makes these particular things especially bad in our mind is not a result of comparing the actual magnitude of it to other historical tragedies, but rather because they occupy a mythological place in our history.

But I still see equality as a red herring here. None of these things would be any less evil if they were done without prejudice. Unless we are to believe that trying to kill and/or enslave all peoples equally is somehow less of an issue than targeting one group or another.

Or to put it more simply. "Equal Treatment" is automatically associated with "Fair" or "Good Treatment" [Neither of which need to be meted out equally] just as "Unequal treatment" is automatically associated with "Unfair" or "Bad" treatment. Since you can treat people equally poorly, or treat people "unequally" well. [i.e. some people better than others].

B. The Minor reason is a conscious one, since this particular way of thinking of the world was never classified as an actual position by it's proponents, the names it has been given have all come from it's critics. It goes by "The Blank Slate", or "The Standard Social Science Model". It is the view that all observed behavioral differences between people [Except homosexuality] are a result in differences in environmental conditioning. Following from this is the idea that with the proper environment, anyone can become like anyone else. It sounds quite idiotic when you formulate it aloud but it's an idea that has informed a half a century of political thought, as well as much of mainstream theories on education.

You see I'm not just some troll. I went to all the same schools as you did and got the same lessons taught about the greatness of equality. I've thought about this much more than you have.

---

Why would you waste your time typing that? I'm not entertaining the ideas of someone who thinks gays are to straight people as children are to adults. A guy isn't lesser for liking dick and neither is a woman for liking vag.

---

At 7/3/13 11:09 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1. Almost no one believes that people are descriptively equal.

So? This means we shouldn;t have equal opportunity, why?

2. No one truly believes in equal treatment at a personal level.

You're greatly missing the point, again. No one here is arguing for micro level equality. Not a single person here has advocated that you should treat every person you meet the same regardless. What is being aruged is marco level equality. What is being argued is that everyone shold be given a floor level of respect by the government, and that includes not giving out benefits based on traits that are solely arbitrary (face it, there is only ONE marital trait that homosexuals cannot do within the couple, and it is EASILY circumvented).

If you don't treat gay Jim as well as you treat straight Jim, or gay Joe, that's your problem, not ours. However, when you decide to treat an entire swath of people different solely because of their difference is when it becomes society's problem.

"Treating women the same as men" sounds lovely in theory but this is principally because the people who mouth such a platitude are only thinking about more superficial differences like income and careers. Try taking off the rose colored glasses and imagine if, for example, men acted towards and around women the exact same way they act around men. Try to imagine the execration that would follow if someone tried to create a female Peter Gryphon. Most Feminists today would not openly advocate such a thing and I suspect any man who tried to treat a woman "Just like a man" would be accused of sexism

You're getting off topic. One group's overreaching is no excuse to intentionally hold back a completely different group.

3. Equal Treatment Under the Law
The most obvious of these exceptions are differences in legal treatment between minors and adults. [This, by the way, is precisely why I said that children are not equal to adults, the law does not recognize children as being capable of making

Now you're getting into the territory of decisions made based upon relevant and germane distinctions. There are numerous facets of adult life that children are unable to perform to an adequate level. Society is no longer as simple as it was 200 years ago. With so much more education, and so much more knowlegde and experience needed to navigate society, most youths are not capable of handling adult tasks. Is it universal? No. Is it an arbitrary removal of rights? No.

Now if you ask me I think expectations for children are being lowered in large part because our society has prolonged child adolescence into the mid 20s, whereas in earlier times someone could be doing everything that was expected of an adult as early as 14 or 15.

Then again, back in earlier times 20 years of education wasn't needed to become a rookie in the high end careers, or 16 years for the professional careers, or 12-14 for the low-mid careers. When life is merely farming or smithing in a small community, one needs to know far less to survive and succeed.

Elderly people whom physicians regard as "incompetent" for medical reasons are then required to have some trusted other co-sign their legal documents.

Again, this is based in relevant criteria to the end decision.

We don't treat men and women equally in divorce courts. [We assume, rightly or wrongly, that either 1. The woman is a more essential caretaker to the child or 2. The woman is a superior caretaker to the child]

Having been involved in family court issues I can attest that this is categorically wrong. When both parents were around, the father got the child just as much as the mother did.

4. The root of egalitarian thinking

You, again, miss the point. It's not about wanting to not be Nazi. (Frankly, I think that idea was created by someone who so dearly WANTS to support those bad acts and has tried hard to mentally pretzel why they cannot.)

Why do people like equality? Here are my two reasons: my freinds and acquaitnaces, and the golden rule.

I have friends in numerous demographics of various levels of societal respect. I don't like seeing my friends hurt for no reason (as if I like seeing them hurt for a reason, but the lack of reason makes it sting harder). Why should I sit back and let them be shit on and just revel in the fact I was born a white male and am straight? No, I stick up for my friends.

Second, and perhaps most important is the golden rule. I want to treat others as I would want to be treated. I extend those feeling to my government in that I want the government to treat everyone the way I want to be treated by the government. As a white, straight, male, I am treated by the government SOLELY based on my actions. I have the opportunity for all rights save those my own decisions foreclose. I want the government to treat others the same way in giving them rights based on their actions, not their traits, only to foreclose rights based on their actions, and only if those actions are relevant to the foreclosed right.

So instead of the seemingly bitter reasons you have for why other support equality, my reasons are rooted in very simple and humble feelings. Are there some out there who are pro-equality just for the reasons you stated? I could say probably, but my gut says it's a definitive yes. But most who support equality don't share those views at all.

---

At 7/3/13 11:24 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: Why would you waste your time typing that? I'm not entertaining the ideas of someone who thinks gays are to straight people as children are to adults.

Legally speaking, they are. If you took the time to eradicate your ignorance on the matter, you'd realize homosexuals are a legally protected class of citizens granted special consideration solely on their sexual preference.

As smilez kindly pointed out to you, children are granted a status that is likewise unequal to adults.

A guy isn't lesser for liking dick and neither is a woman for liking vag.

Have you ever had a traumatic head injury?

---

At 7/3/13 11:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: government-sanctioned equality

Tell me again how race-based subsidies are more fair and justifiable than needs-based programs. If you really need examples I'll find them, but you could easily take my word for it on this matter.

---

At 7/3/13 02:24 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: As smilez kindly pointed out to you, children are granted a status that is likewise unequal to adults.

If that's what he meant, then I misunderstood. It's easy for that to happen based on his wording.

A guy isn't lesser for liking dick and neither is a woman for liking vag.

Have you ever had a traumatic head injury?

No, what I said is pretty much right. Sexual preference doesn't put people above or beneath others.

---

At 7/3/13 02:33 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Tell me again how race-based subsidies are more fair and justifiable than needs-based programs.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

---

At 7/3/13 11:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

So?

One step at a time.

2. No one truly believes in equal treatment at a personal level.

You're greatly missing the point,

You're missing the point of me breaking this down. Since equality, like "Education" and "Racism" has androgynous meanings [which is partly what gives them their potency] I need to nail down each possible definition, from the most strict to the most "relaxed".

If you don't treat gay Jim as well as you treat straight Jim,

Treatment of people based upon the groups they belong to and the significance being in those groups has is an essential tool in social functioning.

So it isn't purely a question of treating "Individuals" differently. It's true that when you know people personally the social tools you can use are going to be more nuanced and precise. However, every person raised in a social setting has a similar set of protocols for dealing with different sets of people who are not part of that narrow circle. I provided examples of this in the previous post.

And there are serious societal problems associated with *not* being discriminate in judgement towards groups when you are not in a position to know each member of that group personally.

Note that saying that group discrimination is a necessary thing is not the same thing as saying that all forms of discrimination are necessary or good. If you *feel* in your heart of hearts that Jim Crow was an inappropriate way to treat a group of people [to say the least], you haven't thereupon proven that all forms of discrimination are evil. Of course, subconsciously that's what the majority of people think, and that is why egalitarianism has had such an insidious choke-hold on western minds.

Of course you can get even more generous and say "You should treat all likes alike" -- But this standard is so relaxed that it is entirely compatible with pre-enlightenment and pre-egalitarian notions. The difference of opinion consists in determining what differences are "significant" -- i.e. worthy of consideration, and which ones aren't. For example, you could say that male and female anatomy [among other things] is a significant enough reason to warrant public bathroom facilities discriminating between men and women by providers of public bathrooms.

Once you've gotten to the point of saying "Treating all likes alike" you've admitted that the issue needs to be handled on a case by case basis instead of being given solved with proclamations of "Universal Equality" --> i.e. Equality is a red herring.

Partly for this above reason, Egalitarians have resorted to trying to downplay the significance or even outright deny the existence of differences between groups that COULD CONCEIVABLY warrant differential treatment in ways that they dislike.

You're getting off topic.

I'm not trying to condemn feminists per-say. I'm saying different things are expected of/from members of different groups and in day to day interactions they are taken entirely for granted. Men treat women differently then they treat eachother and visa versa, and this is treated as normal and natural, *even very often by self styled egalitarians*.

3. Equal Treatment Under the Law

Now you're getting into the territory of decisions made based upon relevant and germane distinctions.

It's your judgement whether a distinction is relevant or not. But I've already said above that whether a distinction is "germane" is always and everywhere the real issue. And that issue is only muddled rather than aided by talk of abstract notions of "Equality" and "Rights"

:There are numerous facets of adult life that children are unable to perform to an adequate level.

I'd rather not get bogged down on this particular point but most children forget all but a far better "default" hypothesis is that Modern Children are being kept from adult responsibilities at increasingly elevated ages. [Progressive credentialism or credential creep is a more recent example of this] The vast majority of academic knowledge acquired in primary and post-secondary school that has been tacked on to the traditional education system which emphasized reading, writing, and arithmetic, is forgotten very shortly after graduating school. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this academic knowledge, especially given that it tends to be forgotten so quickly, is actually something necessary to handle the new "complex economy".

Now if you ask me I think expectations for children are being lowered in large part because our society has prolonged child adolescence into the mid 20s, whereas in earlier times someone could be doing everything that was expected of an adult as early as 14 or 15.

Then again, back in earlier times 20 years of education wasn't needed to become a rookie in the high end careers,

Nor is it likely needed today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/20/o nly-27-percent-of-college-grads-have-a-job-related-to-their-
major/

With some exceptions [Medicine, and engineering, etc.] Most degrees to not teach job skills. An English major is still more employable than a high-school graduate because English degree tells employers that this person is likely more intelligent and conscientious than the HS Grad. The problem is that this effect only works when these graduates are scarce. It's akin to everyone trying to stand up at a rock concert in order to get a better view. It's less that the jobs are getting more complicated and more that the job applicants are getting more competitive.

I'll think of making a thread on this precise topic at some later point.

Again, this is based in relevant criteria to the end decision.

Yes it is.

Having been involved in family court issues I can attest that this is categorically wrong. When both parents were around, the father got the child just as much as the mother did.

Are you inferring a general trend from a single personal experience? Or do you have data on Alimony, Child support payments, and child custody that falsifies what I have said. I am fairly confident that women are categorically favored in divorce courts, but I am open to that view being challenged.

4. The root of egalitarian thinking

Why do people like equality? Here are my two reasons: my freinds and acquaitnaces, and the golden rule.

I have friends in numerous demographics of various levels of societal respect. I don't like seeing my friends hurt for no reason (as if I like seeing them hurt for a reason, but the lack of reason makes it sting harder). Why should I sit back and let them be shit on and just revel in the fact I was born a white male and am straight? No, I stick up for my friends.

First of all, by valuing them over strangers you are discriminating in their favor.

Since what I said in the post you responded to kind of flew over your head. [Mostly my fault] I'll explain it in what i think are four simple "truisms".

1. People and Groups are different
2. Whether or not the way you or society at large acts towards different individuals or groups in different ways, and normalizes this treatment, is justifiable is context-specific. Judgement will therefore be required in each case.
3. Equal means "the same" -- Equal treatment does not imply/necessitate that the treatment is 1. Fair 2. Humane 3. Sensible. [It could be but does not need to be].
4. Therefore, this judgement [of whether the differences are 'important'] can [and should] be made without reference to abstract notions of universal rights or universal equality.

---

At 7/3/13 11:24 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: Why would you waste your time typing that? I'm not entertaining the ideas of someone who thinks gays are to straight people as children are to adults. A guy isn't lesser for liking dick and neither is a woman for liking vag.

So you won't admit into your brain arguments and ideas that challenge your cherished values and fundamental assumptions.

I think there's a word for that.

Regardless...

Two things are "Equal" when they are the same. "Greater" and "Lesser" are just notions that you subconsciously associate with notions of non-equality. Saying that four does not equal five does not require that mathematicians sit down and decide whether 4 is a 'BETTER' number than 5, in some abstract sense.

I could, mind you, regard Heterosexuals and homosexuals with EQUAL contempt, and advocate that both groups should be enslaved, or have their faces stomped upon.

I shouldn't even have to bring this up, but I *am* a Homosexual. I don't buy into biblical justifications for needing to stomp homosexuality out of existence. But I still recognize that these groups are not the same and cannot truly ever be treated as "the same"

It's very similar in some regards to saying that Atheists can't behave morally because they don't believe in god.

---

At 7/4/13 08:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Once you've gotten to the point of saying "Treating all likes alike" you've admitted that the issue needs to be handled on a case by case basis instead of being given solved with proclamations of "Universal Equality" --> i.e. Equality is a red herring.

You, again, are missing the point. I am not advocating that all groups be treated the same. I am advocating that all groups be treated the same uless there is a significant and rational reason to do otherwise. Meaning that all groups are treated equally until proven that there is some real and actual need to treat them differently, and that this need is based in actual reasons, not just hypothesis and dislike.

You seem to be mistaking the concept of equal opportunity with the highly flawed concept of complete equality.

As of yet, there has been no reason to keep gays from marriage that stands up to any logical and/or common sense argument.

1. People and Groups are different

Yeah, and? I treat people differently and make no bones about it. I strive to treat all groups the same.

2. Whether or not the way you or society at large acts towards different individuals or groups in different ways, and normalizes this treatment, is justifiable is context-specific. Judgement will therefore be required in each case.

Not necessarily. Many cases of this equal treatment cannot even make a prima facie case for such discrimination (dictionary sense, not the colloquial sense).

3. Equal means "the same" -- Equal treatment does not imply/necessitate that the treatment is 1. Fair 2. Humane 3. Sensible. [It could be but does not need to be].

In our merit based (well, at least it attempts to be) society equality itself fundamentally carries a high level of fairness, humaneness, and sensibility.

4. Therefore, this judgement [of whether the differences are 'important'] can [and should] be made without reference to abstract notions of universal rights or universal equality.

Like I said this post and before, equality is not to be viewed from the end position, nor the middle position, but from the outset. There are cases where actual differences necessitate different treatment, because those differences have an effect on how the treatment works. Biological differences are clear examples of this. Giving aid to the physically handicapped over the physically able is an example of this. Denying marriage to gays is NOT an example of this.

Groups, unlike people, cannot earn the loss of a right either. As, unless the entire group (100%, no less) commits or omits that necessary act required to lose/keep the right, removal of the right will result in an unjust and improper deprivation.

---

I guess I'm not quite following in what way(s) you think homosexuals and hererosexuals are inequal.

And do you actually think atheists are incapable of morality?

---

At 7/4/13 09:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You, again, are missing the point. I am not advocating that all groups be treated the same. I am advocating that all groups be treated the same uless there is a significant and rational reason to do otherwise. Meaning that all groups are treated equally until proven that there is some real and actual need to treat them differently, and that this need is based in actual reasons, not just hypothesis and dislike.

The response to this was already provided. In my mind this is equivalent to saying "Treat Likes Alike" -- But this is a trivial criteria. Even people in the 17th century and prior would not object to it. I'm just going to steal someone else's words on this issue since they're better written and I'm kinda tired. [not of this topic, I need to go to sleep]

Here, as Aristotle long ago observed and as Michigan law professor Peter Westen explained some years ago in a much-discussed article in the Harvard Law Review, equality has a more normative sense. It means that like cases (or, as lawyers say, âEUoesimilarly situatedâEU instances, or similarly situated classes of people) should be treated alike.

But in that normative sense, equality is wholly uncontroversial-and entirely useless. Everyone favors equality: Everyone thinks that like cases should be treated alike. Nobody argues, âEUoeThese groups are alike in all relevant respects, but they should be treated differently.âEU So when people disagree about legal or political issues, they arenâEUTMt arguing for and against equality. Instead, they are disagreeing about whether two cases, or two classes of people, actually are alike for the purposes of whatever is being discussed.

With respect to that sort of disagreement, though, no answers can be squeezed out of the idea of equality, as WestenâEUTMs article explained. Instead, we have to refer to our political philosophies or our moral views or something of that sort. Something more substantive than the unassailable but substantively empty proposition that âEUoelike cases should be treated alike.âEU

You seem to be mistaking the concept of equal opportunity with the highly flawed concept of complete equality.

As of yet, there has been no reason to keep gays from marriage that stands up to any logical and/or common sense argument.

This is mainly because to day people view marriage as a vehicle to legitimize sex, including Christians, as opposed to a vehicle designed to keep one male and one female morally and legally attached to the wellbeing of their offspring. One could make a perfectly reasonable argument that Marriage means whatever people want it to mean and so if this is the case I would agree that there's no qualitative difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. They are of equal [zero] societal value.

If one still holds to the antiquated notion that a child requires a male father figure and a female mother figure as necessary [but insufficient] conditions for being raised in a functional environment, insofar as marriage exists to facilitate this process and is NOT a mere vehicle for legitimizing sex, then 'homosexual marriage' isn't "Wrong", it simply makes no sense.

Not necessarily. Many cases of this equal treatment cannot even make a prima facie case for such discrimination (dictionary sense, not the colloquial sense).

I'm not sure what this sentence means, sorry.

Groups, unlike people, cannot earn the loss of a right either. As, unless the entire group (100%, no less) commits or omits that necessary act required to lose/keep the right, removal of the right will result in an unjust and improper deprivation.

A "trend" should be sufficient to warrant some response. So for example, Michael Bloombergs frisking policies target African Americans disproportionately. The reason? African Americans commit disproportionately high crimes. I.E. Not all african americans are committing crimes but discrimination' in the form of profiling appears "fair" or at least logical.

I have no idea what denying "Rights" entails, since everyone has their own definition of what rights are and who should get them and why. You can call something a right and then demand that because it's a right we're obligated to provide it to everyone 'equally' [in reality this is never possible since rights are always in conflict with one another] the justification being that it is a right.

---

At 7/5/13 05:28 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: I guess I'm not quite following in what way(s) you think homosexuals and hererosexuals are inequal.

And do you actually think atheists are incapable of morality?

They're not equal in their capacity to raise children.

Mind you that I also think a large number of heterosexuals should not be permitted to marry either.

You're misreading. "Atheists do not believe in god, therefore they cannot act morally" -- The idea is that if you do no not believe in X, you must also believe [or not believe] Y, and because you do or do not believe in Y you must be demonized.

I do not believe in equality. I don't observe it and I do not observe people adhering to it. That doesn't mean I believe [or don't believe] in anything else. The only thing that follows from the observation that people are different [and therefore, by definition, unequal] is that they will behave differently. Furthermore, it may therefore be not only necessary but also productive to treat them differently.

You just automatically assume treating people different necessarily entails extolling some and treating others like garbage.

Atheists are capable of acting morally [As it is commonly defined]. "Incapable of morality" sounds strange. One either acts morally / immorally, or believes that X is moral. Whether or not they can consistently deny the existence of god but believe in morality as an actual thing [and do so logically] is suspect.

There are plenty of non-believers who can nevertheless make platitudes about right and wrong. I am a non-believer and I think they're deluding themselves, but it does prove atheists are capable of both acting and believing in morality.

---

At 7/7/13 01:10 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: They're not equal in their capacity to raise children.

First off, this has never once been proven. Second, raising children is only one part of many when it comes to reasons for marriage.

Mind you that I also think a large number of heterosexuals should not be permitted to marry either.

Your subjective views don't absolve a system that currently labels all homosexuals as bad parents and thus cannot marry whilst allowing drug addicts and predatory child molesters to marry.

On top of that, your views narrowly presupposes that a homosexual is inherently unable to parent properly without taking any actual knowledge of the parenting skills of any of those homosexuals who wish to marry.

You might as well say poor people can't raise children well because they have a higher rate of CPS involvement, even though there are millions of such couple raising very healthy and well adjusted childen.

---

Not all married couples raise children. Plus, I haven't heard of any proof that same sex couples can't raise children well.

---

At 7/7/13 11:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/7/13 01:10 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: They're not equal in their capacity to raise children.

First off, this has never once been proven. Second, raising children is only one part of many when it comes to reasons for marriage.

You don't have to prove that they aren't equal in their capacity [if we're talking about parenting rather then actual reproduction], you have to prove that they are. Seeing as the idea of them being the same is far more counter intuitive than the reverse.

Most of the studies I've seen, especially the ones that have been trumped up recently, claim that children raised are basically the same. My beef with these studies is the small sample sizes and also the selection bias. [Researchers picking 100 or so white, upper class Lesbian couples and interviewing their children, and then drawing conclusions]

Of course if we can be confident that these sorts of people are the only ones who will ever think of adopting children, then that is a pretty decent argument for allowing homosexual marriages on the condition of adoption.

An even *better* argument would be that although a child raised by a homosexual couple is worse off than a heterosexual couple, he or she is better than if not adopted at all.

Your subjective views don't absolve a system that currently labels all homosexuals as bad parents and thus cannot marry whilst allowing drug addicts and predatory child molesters to marry.

If your argument is that "crappy heterosexual parents are permitted to marry and therefore for the sake of consistency homosexual marriage should be tolerated." I would call that a *good* argument.

I fault the system for being less restrictive, not more, and so do not wish it to become less restrictive. So my *theoretical* objection to allowing gays to marry is consistent. However you're right that it's not accurate in light of contemporary views on what marriage is.

On top of that, your views narrowly presupposes that a homosexual is inherently unable to parent properly without taking any actual knowledge of the parenting skills of any of those homosexuals who wish to marry.

You might as well say poor people can't raise children well because they have a higher rate of CPS involvement, even though there are millions of such couple raising very healthy and well adjusted childen.

Except that I do support measures to at least regulate the number of children the destitute can have. Or rather, limiting the number of children someone can have if they are relying on public assistance. You have a serious problem in the United States where birth rates are diverging along class lines, but that's another issue.

If they're poor but are able to raise their children on their own then that's another story.

Also note there is a difference between saying an individual homosexual is a bad parent and A homosexual couple is not adequate for the raising of a child. An adopted child raised by two exceptional fathers is a child with two fathers and no biological mother. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with homosexuals being irresponsible or incompetent.

---

At 7/8/13 12:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You don't have to prove that they aren't equal in their capacity [if we're talking about parenting rather then actual reproduction], you have to prove that they are. Seeing as the idea of them being the same is far more counter intuitive than the reverse.

Most of the studies I've seen, especially the ones that have been trumped up recently, claim that children raised are basically the same. My beef with these studies is the small sample sizes and also the selection bias. [Researchers picking 100 or so white, upper class Lesbian couples and interviewing their children, and then drawing conclusions]

I know, and I intentionally ignored those studies. The study that whats her face put up earlier this years is the only one to take a large sample size, but suffers from other more destructive problems (such as the sample dates in question predating legal intentional parenthood by homosexuals in all but one state).

Of course if we can be confident that these sorts of people are the only ones who will ever think of adopting children, then that is a pretty decent argument for allowing homosexual marriages on the condition of adoption.
An even *better* argument would be that although a child raised by a homosexual couple is worse off than a heterosexual couple, he or she is better than if not adopted at all.

And an even better argument would be that marriage is not a pre-requisite for child-rearing. This means that the argument as to whether homosexuals are good, bad, or equal parents (in all circumstances) to heterosexuals is entirely irrelevant to marriage, except in a backward direction. Instead of denying marriage because of the claim, true or not, that that the clss is bad at parenting, it should be allowed because IF they truly are bad at parenting, they could use all the help they can get, and that includes the benefits of marriage.

On top of that, why deny all of the other benefits through which child rearing itself is completely irrelevant?

Except that I do support measures to at least regulate the number of children the destitute can have. Or rather, limiting the number of children someone can have if they are relying on public assistance. You have a serious problem in the United States where birth rates are diverging along class lines, but that's another issue.

Limiting the number of children based on an objective calculation as to whether the family can financially support them is very different than limiting it based on a subjective determination that a class of people is categorically bad at parenting.

Also note there is a difference between saying an individual homosexual is a bad parent and A homosexual couple is not adequate for the raising of a child. An adopted child raised by two exceptional fathers is a child with two fathers and no biological mother. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with homosexuals being irresponsible or incompetent.

How exactly is a bioligical mother inherently a better parent than any other parent? Is there some extra-sensory connection? Is there some sort of chemical or mental block that forces us to treat all children worse than those who are our biological offspring, regardless of what position they fill in our family?

Is not parenting about responsibility, love, and empathy, rather than mere blood connection?

---

At 6/26/13 05:36 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: It's still completely illegal in all other states.

I'm not from 'Murica, and the fact that gay marriage is/was still illegal where most of you come from disgusted "us, Europians". I was really happy for you guys when I read this post, but well... Shit. :(

---

At 7/8/13 01:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I know, and I intentionally ignored those studies. The study that whats her face put up earlier this years is the only one to take a large sample size, but suffers from other more destructive problems (such as the sample dates in question predating legal intentional parenthood by homosexuals in all but one state).

I brought them up as a sort of pre-emptive strike :'(

And an even better argument would be that marriage is not a pre-requisite for child-rearing. This means that the argument as to whether homosexuals are good, bad, or equal parents (in all circumstances) to heterosexuals is entirely irrelevant to marriage, except in a backward direction. Instead of denying marriage because of the claim, true or not, that that the clss is bad at parenting, it should be allowed because IF they truly are bad at parenting, they could use all the help they can get, and that includes the benefits of marriage.

Marriage is not a pre-requisite or should not be? Traditionally it was seen to be, and for reasons which go beyond mere religious doctrine. Child rearing wasn't merely the a pre-requisite for marriage, it was the primary function of marriage. The modern idea that marriage is about "Love" is extremely modern.

I* think* I understand your logic though. We live in a world where people have different conceptions of what marriage is and if marriage is not a pre-req for child rearing, then there's no justification to exclude homosexuals from screwing around with marriage if heterosexuals are able to.

And if homosexual couples are already legally permitted to adopt children, it would make more sense for them to do so married.

I Oppose gay marriage in principle because I have a different view of what marriage is, but at this point I'm not interested in actually politically opposing Gay Marriage because such an opposition is contingent on a whole host of other things that are not likely to occur any time soon.

On top of that, why deny all of the other benefits through which child rearing itself is completely irrelevant?

Well "Separate but equal" was tried but apparently doesn't satisfy many people. I originally took to the position that if civil unions come with the same benefits as marriage, homosexuals had no reason short of unsatisfied egos to complain. I'm not sure if Civil unions in the various states actually were functionally the same. [I suspect they weren't]

But once again this just shows how all of this is contingent.

Limiting the number of children based on an objective calculation as to whether the family can financially support them is very different than limiting it based on a subjective determination that a class of people is categorically bad at parenting.

How exactly is a bioligical mother inherently a better parent than any other parent? Is there some extra-sensory connection? Is there some sort of chemical or mental block that forces us to treat all children worse than those who are our biological offspring, regardless of what position they fill in our family?

Is not parenting about responsibility, love, and empathy, rather than mere blood connection?

Well I do generally think, ceteris paribus, a biological mother will perform better than a non-biological mother [or father]. By virtue of the fact that knowing that a child is your offspring will likely produce greater feelings of responsibility, love, and empathy. [Similar to the idea of the Cinderella effect in evolutionary psychology]

http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/buller/cinderella%20effect%20facts.p df -- As i said, similar, but not quite the same thing.

Mind you, however, that if a significant proportion of child births are accidental , then parents raising children they didn't plan to raise might be less empathetic than non-biological parents who are actually *choosing* to adopt a child, since selection bias is offsetting the effect of biology.

But I actually wasn't talking about biological versus non-biological. I was talking about having two fathers or two mothers versus having one mother and one father. Again, it would be quite the coincidence if

---

At 7/9/13 08:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Marriage is not a pre-requisite or should not be?

Marriage is not.

Traditionally it was seen to be, and for reasons which go beyond mere religious doctrine. Child rearing wasn't merely the a pre-requisite for marriage, it was the primary function of marriage. The modern idea that marriage is about "Love" is extremely modern.

A couple things here. First off you are wrong then right. Yes, marriage was never about love, but then again, marriage wasn't around for the sole purpose of creating children either. Marriage was initially an economic pact between extended families. It was a way to join family names together and consolidate their power, gain power, or to create and alliance or end a conflict. Child rearing was an expected result, but in now way was it the sole and primary purpose.

Second, who cares? Marriage has long now been about love and the joining of two non-blood relatives together as a family. Religion spent the better part of 2-3 millenia at the center, but has quickly and strongly been losing its place in the institution. Marriage now is only partially about children and very little about religion anymore. In fact, religion is now ecclectic, meaning that it serves whatever purpose to every couple that that couple chooses it to serve, and in a high number of cases children are not part of the picture.

I* think* I understand your logic though. We live in a world where people have different conceptions of what marriage is and if marriage is not a pre-req for child rearing, then there's no justification to exclude homosexuals from screwing around with marriage if heterosexuals are able to.

That's a secondary point, yes. However, the main point was that if child rearing is no longer truly associated with marriage (seeing how many kiddos are born out of wedlock nowadays) why should that part of the insitution be the deciding factor in who gets to join? That would be like deciding military generalship based on one's family station.

But I actually wasn't talking about biological versus non-biological. I was talking about having two fathers or two mothers versus having one mother and one father. Again, it would be quite the coincidence if

And you're going back to a tactic I criticized before: dictating a person's personal ability solely based on the class they belong to. You're in essence saying that men by biological fact, are wholly incapable of raising children. This is completely and utterly false. This presupposes that much of how the sexes act is based on biology and not gender. I knwo numerous men who are more feminine and more matriarchal than 90% of my female friends. And I know some women who are more masculine and patriarchal than the men I know. Sure there are some things we take for granted (and should not) about how the sexes act. However, the more these traits are studied the more they are shown to be products of gender conditioning and not biology. (e.g. women are actually biologically more driven to cheat than men are, even though society insists the opposite is biologically true.)

---

At 7/9/13 11:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Marriage is not.

That's what I thought but I wanted to verify.

A couple things here.

That function is limited mostly to the upper classes, i.e. a minority. Moreover, when you look at the various rules and obligations associated with marriage, you notice something. Namely, that these rules make sense from the perspective of encouraging [or, perhaps, compelling] men to function as economic providers for child-bearing women.

Second, who cares? Marriage has long now been about love and the joining of two non-blood relatives together as a family. Religion spent the better part of 2-3 millenia at the center, but has quickly and strongly been losing its place in the institution. Marriage now is only partially about children and very little about religion anymore.

Be careful about conflating the idea of traditional marriage as I am describing it and the idea of traditional marriage from some sort of Judeo-christian centric notion. Traditional marriage of the former kind predates the latter and, moreover, crosses cultures.

Or I misread that, and the actual argument your making is that because god is dead and marriage has lost it's religious significance, and little has been lost from this change, that there is little cause to worry.

I'm not certain one way or another whether a non-religious conception of marriage is a good or bad thing. I am fairly confident that society's foundations are compromised when marriage is perceived the way it is. You need *some* institution, which reinforces the fact that they need to be concerned about the welfare of the children that they brought into the world. You also need an institution to keep men and women productive whilst elevating their status for taking on the role of 'child provider' -- I see the only alternative as the child support model.

But all of this makes calls for homosexual marriage an effect rather than a cause.

I've stated repeatedly that modern marriage is probably *more* perceived as a matter of personal emotional satisfaction than it is a matter of duties and obligations meant to provide for children more intensively. If we are to simply take this new conception for granted, obviously not only homosexual marriage but polygamous marriage is of equal value to heterosexual marriage. More and more people take this for granted, and so more and more people are coming to the conclusion that follows from it.

That's a secondary point, yes. However, the main point was that if child rearing is no longer truly associated with marriage (seeing how many kiddos are born out of wedlock nowadays) why should that part of the insitution be the deciding factor in who gets to join? That would be like deciding military generalship based on one's family station.

It would be carrying a bad idea to it's logical conclusion, But I take issue with the bad idea generally.

But I actually wasn't talking about biological versus non-biological. I was talking about having two fathers or two mothers versus having one mother and one father. Again, it would be quite the coincidence if

And you're going back to a tactic I criticized before: dictating a person's personal ability solely based on the class they belong to. You're in essence saying that men by biological fact, are wholly incapable of raising children. This is completely and utterly false. This presupposes that much of how the sexes act is based on biology and not gender. I knwo numerous men who are more feminine and more matriarchal than 90% of my female friends. And I know some women who are more masculine and patriarchal than the men I know. Sure there are some things we take for granted (and should not) about how the sexes act. However, the more these traits are studied the more they are shown to be products of gender conditioning and not biology. (e.g. women are actually biologically more driven to cheat than men are, even though society insists the opposite is biologically true.)

Knowing *some men* or *some women*, unless you are prepared to supply statistics, seems tantamount to saying that the exceptions invalidate the rule. Additionally, all of this also presupposes that the child's perceptions of the parents will be the same as if in a normal biological relationship as much as the parent's perceptions of the child's will be.

I'm disinclined to believe that on the aggregate males, even homosexual males, can be functionally equivalent to mothers and likewise in the case of homosexual females.

______

I forgot to mention in that paragraph about birth control and those of lower income, that if a person could *only* raise children by indulging the understanding of society [i.e. child support] they are almost by definition a bad parent. [By virtue of the forethought that they put into the issue]

Additionally there is a serious problem when a great many children are born from the lower income brackets and a handful of children are raised very intensively by the members of the upper and upper middle class. Traditionally, encouraging the upper class to have more children was a good way of "re-distributing wealth", good behaviors, and good genes amongst the rest of the population.

It is even worse when increasingly one's economic position is being determined by innate cognitive ability, but that's a topic far removed from gay marriage.