The costs of gay marriage

[moevillini]

sort of outside the specific realm of this discussion, but related in the sense that it pertains to the definition of "family" and had financial implications based upon that definition...


when we bought our house and moved into our community 30 years ago, in order to qualify for a "FAMILY" discount for various Park District and YMCA programs (and others, but those were the primary providers at that time) a family HAD to have both a mother and a father. Single parents with children were excluded based upon that definition, unless a death certificate was provided for the "missing" parent. Needless to say, as single-parent households were starting to become more common at about that time, people starting questioning and protesting that policy and it was changed within a few years.

I was somewhat involved in a few programs at our local Y and served on a committee looking into changing the policy at that time, and it's interesting that much of the reasoning prohibit same-sex marriage is similar to reasons some folks were giving to justify denying the family discount to single-parent households.

 

[margodydek]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

This is what drives me nuts. There are idiots on both sides of the argument, but I can't stand how the supposed people who are all about "no judging" sure do a heck of a lot of judging. I like how they assume that anyone on the other side of the argument is either incompetent, ignorant, or just a flat-out bigot. Are there those types of people on the "conservative" side? Sure. But to assume all of them are is quite contrary to their whole "no judging" mantra.

However, with regards to the ignorant bigots, feel free to judge all you want.

 

[Gameface]

Denying gay marriage seems like the kid who is playing with one of his toys but sure as hell isn't going to let the other kid play with the other toy he's not playing with.

What does gay marriage hurt? If there isn't an answer to that question then how is any of this justified?

 

[Gameface]

Let's be clear about something. There are gay people who want to be married. If force wasn't being used to stop them then they'd go ahead and do it. This debate is about whether or not we as a society want to continue to participate in the use of force against these individuals, or if we should allow them to conduct their personal lives as they see fit.

Several are saying we should continue to exert force against people to prevent them from acting in the way they choose. Their actions will injure no one. Our actions as a society to deny them their freedom cause real tangible damages to them in a variety of ways.

I would say since we as a society are actively injuring a portion of our society the threshold for justification should be high.

Are there any significant justifications for our actions as a society? Is the sole justification that it is a violation of the predominant moral beliefs? Is that a valid justification? Is that enough of a justification?

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

 

[One Brow]

I thought you were saying that argument had been made in the 1960s. Did I miss something?

You're right, I did say 50s or 60s. That was just a quick hit, I'll bo a more thorough check. I think we agree the statement was equally ludicrous in 1883.

And you wonder why people complain about your semantics?

Not at all. However, as you said yourself, you haven't taken the time to really clarify your initial post.

You're trying to use a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument. See Scat's statement that I quoted. Just because not all heterosexual marriages lead to children does not mean that heterosexual marriages are not FUNDAMENTALLY different than homosexual unions, which CANNOT lead to children.

Except, they can. Among the examples I included were surrogacy and fertilization. If a wife is infertile and the child has a couple via surrogacy, we still view the wife as a parent of that child. If the husband if infertile and the wife uses a sperm donor, the husband is still the parent. It seems to me that in both cases, the marriage led to the children (do you disagree?). Yet, you would seemingly (correct me if I misunderstand) say surrogacy for two men, or or sperm fertilization for two women, does not result in the union leading to children. Assuming I understand your positions correctly, can you see why I find this a blatantly unfair assessment on your part?

 

[One Brow]

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

I'll concede it.

 

[margodydek]

Denying gay marriage seems like the kid who is playing with one of his toys but sure as hell isn't going to let the other kid play with the other toy he's not playing with.

What does gay marriage hurt? If there isn't an answer to that question then how is any of this justified?

No one can say for sure if any "hurt" would result from changing the definition of marriage. However, same-sex marriage would be the most radical change in the history of western civilization in terms of a social institution. It would in essence render genders obsolete. Some people still believe that there are differences between males and females, and that rendering future generations' genders meaningless may bring about unforseen consequences.

A lot of people think that conservatives fear an impending apocalypse as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. Far from the truth. To be honest, I would think if both sides took a step back they'd see this is quite a trivial matter considering the other problems our society is currently facing.

 

[One Brow]

So you're saying that person A can treat person B with hatred, without actually feeling hatred? I'm not sure I buy that.

If you can't tell the difference between a behavior that expresses hatred, and one that does not, then you are treating someone with hatred.

Some examples from recent studies:

After controlling for dress, background, speech patterns, etc., black and white men went to various locations in New York looking for employment. For every group, people without a criminal record were hired/upgraded at a much higher rate than those with a criminal record. However, white men with a criminal record were hired/upgraded at about the same rate as as black men without a criminal record. You will find very few employers in New York that say they hate black people, but in their hiring, they treat black people as if they were criminals. How is that different from treating them with hatred? Do you think that it matters to a black applicant whether the employer feels hatred, if he typically will be treated like a criminal regardless?

After controlling for other background issues, resumes examined by employers typically rated applicants with typically female names as similarly qualified to applicants with typically male names who were a full degree status lower (that is, women with bachelors were rated as about the same as men with associates, women with masters as about the same as men with bachelors). There was little difference in this effect between male and female employers, and very few of the employers would say they hate women. Yet, how is this evaluation pattern different from those who say they hate women? Does it really matter to women applicants is the evaluator feels hatred, when they will be treated as less worthy of a job regardless?

 

[One Brow]

Not without outside intervention. Then again you know this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

If outside intervention is used in a heterosexual union, does that invalidate the children as belonging to that couple, in your opinion?

 

[Scat]

If outside intervention is used in a heterosexual union, does that invalidate the children as belonging to that couple, in your opinion?

Not at all. The difference being, a hetero marriage can produce offspring with no outside intervention in most cases. A gay marriage will require outside intervention every single time. That is a fundamental difference.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I take this as a point conceded since no one dared to respond.

Oh, I see how it is. You make come claim and if you don't get an argument claim that you are right because you didn't get a response.

I stand my ground, and deny your claim. I disagree with your statements. If you want my answers and the why reread the entire thread again please as I don't really have enough desire to run around in circles again just to play the word games. The answers are in there somewhere. If you really want to know, you will find them. If you only want to argue and attempt to "win", you will find that too.

I'm convinced someone that is entirely focused on seeing bigotry will find it. Someone intent to see harm, will see it. Someone intent to see misogyny will find it. Someone intent to find understanding, will find it. Someone intent to find patience, will find it. Someone intent to argue, will find it.

I do not concede, I just refuse to argue in circles. I'm going back to the more serious threads about Buckner and the firing of Ty Corbin.

 

[Gameface]

Oh, I see how it is. You make come claim and if you don't get an argument claim that you are right because you didn't get a response.

I stand my ground, and deny your claim. I disagree with your statements. If you want my answers and the why reread the entire thread again please as I don't really have enough desire to run around in circles again just to play the word games. The answers are in there somewhere. If you really want to know, you will find them. If you only want to argue and attempt to "win", you will find that too.

I'm convinced someone that is entirely focused on seeing bigotry will find it. Someone intent to see harm, will see it. Someone intent to see misogyny will find it. Someone intent to find understanding, will find it. Someone intent to find patience, will find it. Someone intent to argue, will find it.

I do not concede, I just refuse to argue in circles. I'm going back to the more serious threads about Buckner and the firing of Ty Corbin.

Well I was joking because my feelings were hurt that my genius post was passed over.