Philosoft

There's been nothing in the last 100 years to suggest any of what you attribute to the "subconscious" actually occurs. The Freudian notions of entire portions of our personalities hiding there have been long discredited. You are in possession of a long-outdated notion of "subconscious." Nowadays, you might want to look into things like implicit memory.
When did "witch" become analogous to "in-your-face religionist"? Are you talking about witches like the one from the Bugs Bunny cartoon, with the big pointy hat and flying broom?

Salmon of Doubt

Did I say once in the above comment that I thought divorce is a favourable outcome? No, I did not. So why are you putting words into my mouth? I said I would prefer to have gay parents than ones who divorced.

And that threatens you? You are scared then, that some gay man will jump on you and rape you? And if something like carelessly catching disease is a crime, you will of course I assume consider abstinence only sex education as criminal, as in countries that prctise it have higher levels of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Just because some people in a demographic group experience problems with disease is not any reason to deny them marriage rights afforded to other people. Surely introducing marriage to those who want it will encourage monogamy and ideally slow the spread of the disease.

I give up. You clearly have a fixed idea of what gay culture is, and I'm clearly not going to be able to get you to change your mind. BTW, I have no idea what gay culture is, and I don't care.

What the fuck is all that? Straight porn is a much larger industry than gay porn, because there are more consumers. I can understand how you might dislike porn, that's fair enough, but you can't focus on gay porn as being worse than straight porn, especially as there is less of it.

And you need to drop your tired old lines about leaving the nuclear family alone and messing with kids. I'm really finding it difficult to continue any kind of debate, as I keep seeing many intelligent, well worded arguments in favour of gay marriage, which you counter with crap about 'messing with kids' and jargon about x-families. And what the hell does corporate america have to do with ANYTHING? :banghead: This is just ridiculous, I give up, unless yguy has anything inflammatory to say that I feel compelled to respond to!

FOIL

But how does that address the question? It's certainly possible that IVF can lead to "fatherless" children. That's even true of male-female marriages in which donor semen might be used (in the sense that the biological father might be anonymous). But it's certainly not necessary that it be the case. As I mentioned, same-sex couples could choose to allow the biological parent(s) remain part of the "family" just as opposite-sex couples can (in the case of sperm donation).

It seems to me that you've proposed something like the following: IF SSM is legitimized, THEN a bunch of nasty stuff will happen. But I still don't see anything like the demonstration of a necessary link between SSM and the "x-family" other than mere definition.

In other words, it seems like you've defined the "x-family" to be "anything other than the traditional nuclear family". And it seems also that according to your definition of "nuclear family" that the "x-family" necessarily includes adoptive parents. As the difference between adoptive and natural parents is very subtle indeed, I wonder why they should be "lumped in" with SSM.

Well then, perhaps you could describe the principle that drives that definition. What is it that distinguishes the "nuclear family" from the "x-family" and why?

I'll agree that it's certainly very compelling. However, I don't see the relevance. I questioned how the "social ills" in Moynihan's report are necessarily linked to the sex of the parent. Moynihan mentions fathers in terms of the sex roles of the 1960s, but such roles are simply not the case anymore. But even that's not really at issue. I see a very strong case for necessary support and role modeling, but none for the necessity of male-female relationships.

I asked why biology should be a bias in determining parental relationships, but I don't see anything in what you wrote that addresses that. Am I missing something?

Maybe you could clear it up by answering the hypothetical situation I posed. Should a biological relationship take precedence over the clear best interests of the child? It would seem to me that in order to remain consistent with the case you've been building that you must answer in the affirmative, but of course I may have misread your meaning.

I hate to keep using that confused icon, but I really don't see the relevance here. However, you do seem to be suggesting that biology is the only relevant factor in determining parental relationships. Would this be true?


Here you definitely seem to be saying that because the courts might occasionally make a mistake in determining a child's best interests, that it's better not to even worry about that and rely solely on biology. Again, I certainly might not understand you, so please correct me if I've got it wrong. However, if I do, could you please explain what "middle ground" would be your preference and what principle would motivate it?

Okay, I certainly understand that change breeds change. No problem there. But what I asked was, what is it about SSM that will cause existing families to break up, future "nuclear-type" families to fail to form, and parents to abandon their children? I agree that broken families can have serious consequences, but I don't understand how you get from the legitimization of SSM to broken marriages and abandoned children. That's the part of your argument that I'm still missing.

Like I said before, you've provided a lot of compelling statistics to demonstrate that a host of social ills follows the breakup of families and the formation of families in which there is an insufficient support structure in which to raise children. However, you've further claimed that the legitimization of SSM will lead to these same ills. But I don't see anywhere where you've yet demonstrated the necessary causal links between SSM and all this "nasty stuff". In order to convince me anyway, you've got to show that this stuff is either inescapable or at least the most highly probable consequence of legitimizing SSM. But I haven't seen anything in this thread that approaches that burden. What am I missing?

FOIL

yguy

Look, this is merely pharisaical straining out of gnats. You've picked one word out of that quote in a transparent attempt to discredit the substance of the idea. The obvious point is that people can be intimidated into thinking wrong is right if they fear disapproval; whether it is militant homosexuals intimidating the APA or tantrum-throwing kids intimidating parents, the principle is the same.

As obviously determined as you are to misunderstand, far be it from me to frustrate you in that desire.

yguy

I claimed that I didn't posit it IN THAT QUOTE - and I didn't, except to the extent that similar rationalizations are used to justify both.

I didn't say that.

So what's the problem?

It was entirely peripheral to that part of the discussion. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing by making it a point of debate at all.

An obvious attempt to divert the discussion away from the point.

I did nothing of the kind. You are like a six year old who takes apart a toy (my argument) scatters it all over the room, and hates the toy because it won't go back together again.

Kimpatsu

Glad to see you admit your argument is on a par with a 6YO's plaything.

winstonjen

The problem is with your 'arguments' and 'rationale.' It's not like gays are asking for a right that heterosexuals don't already have.

Dr Rick

...the problem is also that you post irrational arguments only to subsequently deny that you did.

yguy

Brothers and sisters who wish to marry don't have that right either, so heterosexuality per se doesn't confer the right to marry.

yguy

No, the problem is that your determination to find fault with my arguments coupled with your inability to do so compels you to distort them beyond recognition.