keyser_soze

Happy to oblige....any time.

RevDahlia

I slogged through about half of this thread and gave up in disgust, so I apologize if this post is repetitious. If my points have been addressed already, feel free to ignore them.

What strikes me is that the complaints which have been made about "gay culture" (whatever that is) have exact parallels in "straight culture" (whatever that is.) I am not "rationalizing" bad behavior by anyone. I don't believe that straights being scummy justify queers being scummy. I merely seek to point out that we are not so different, on the whole.

F'rinstance:

Assumption: That "gay culture" encourages sexual contact between adults and teenagers.
Parallel: If the spam in my inbox is any indication, "straight culture" glorifies sex between adult men and teenage girls, to a truly icky degree. True that the models in "teen porn" are legally required to be 18, but the idiom exists to imply that they are not. Dominant culture (when I use this term I mean American culture, as it is the one in which I live and of which I have the most knowledge) positively fetishizes teenage girls. Abercrombie and Fitch markets thong underwear to 12-year-olds, for heaven's sake.

Also, it's my understanding that most sexually active teenage girls are sleeping with adult men. I do know that adult men father most teen moms' babies, and teenage girls who wind up with STDs frequently acquire them from adult partners. Is this more acceptable than 16-year-old boys getting it on with "Daddy" at the bath house? Why?

Assumption: That "gay culture" promulgates pornographic landscapes.
Parallel: Have you driven down the freeway lately? Seen the billboards? Looked at a Victoria's Secret catalog? Watched a beer commercial? "Straight culture" abounds with pornographic and semi-pornographic imagery. By "pornographic" I mean "that which depicts sexual material with an eye to the financial bottom line". I don't think that lack of visible naughty bits disqualifies something from being porn. (I also don't object to porn, but I think it's ludicrous to assert that pornographic public imagery is confined to "gay culture".)
From Tijuana Bibles to "Deep Throat" to the Hustler store, pornography has been an intrinsic part of straight culture for decades. Perhaps heteros just don't notice it anymore?

Assumption: That "gay culture" values promiscuity.
Parallel: Whoo boy. What about the endless snarky jokes about how promiscuous straight men are? How about the assumption that straight guys will go through women like Kleenex until they are snared by a crafty female? The common idea that straight men just want to get it on with as many hot girls as possible, and loathe commitment? The fact that our athletes, actors, and musicians get crazy 'tang, and that this is seen as being a perk of the job by most people? How is a backstage groupie orgy any more legitimate than a circuit party?
Example: Actor Colin Farrell, recent arriviste, is widely reputed to be a real wolf. Letterman and Leno make wink-wink nudge-nudge comments in interviews with the guy. Finally, he knocks up some model. Public outcry? Nope -- (straight) boys will be (straight) boys, right?

Assumption: That gay culture emphasizes anal intercourse.
Parallel: Again, I refer you to my inbox. "Hot Wet Teen All-Anal Action". Anal sex is practiced by straights with some frequency. There's a whole genre of porn (straight people look at porn? you're kidding!) dedicated to anal. many straight men consider it the Holy Grail. Conversely, speaking as a dedicated fag hag, it's my impression that many gay men don't much like anal and don't engage in it.

To sum up, dominant culture is highly sexualized. I do not think that this is a bad thing necessarily. Unfortunately, dominant culture also emphasizes selfishness and disrespect for others, and the problems related to sexual activity -- gay or straight -- may be attributed to a lack of respect.

We all need to clean up our act, to use dk's words, and be responsible and treat our partners well. No matter which gender turns our crank.

It is specious, bigoted and dishonest to focus on irresponsible queer behavior without also examining similar (if not identical) hetero behavior.

dk

My apologies for the delay in reply. I had a VERY hectic weekend...
dk: No problem, I’m going to break this post up.
dk: I have no idea what you mean by “an absolute sense”. Everyone in the US is connected by Laws. Today the Law treats broken and amputated families like nuclear families, and natural parent rights supersede adoptive rights, unless a parent forfeits their parental rights through due process.

FOIL: I guess my questions in this area could be reframed: "what limitations, if any, do you see legitimately being placed on the rights of natural parents?" AND...
"What necessarily separates an adoptive n-family from an adoptive x-family?"
I ask these as I am still unable to discern the principle operating behind your reasoning in this area.
dk: I am an advocate for the nuclear family. Parents are obliged by the marriage contract (law) to raise their own children. When the nuclear family disintegrates the problem gets escalated to family courts for resolution. Parents able to shoulder the burdens of family and prosper are free from the law and the courts. Broken and amputated families are dependent upon family courts because they are broken and amputated. Special interest groups have besieged nuclear families assuming they are broken. The governments expansive use of in loco parentis through public schools, social services, police and health services intrudes assumes the worst of all families, otherwise they have only themselves to blame. Dig it, not the nuclear family is autonomous therefore in0dependent of family courts, and that’s a very good thing in a free society.

The governments incursions into the nuclear family have been justified by the courts through penumbra privacy rights, equal protection and due process clauses. Great Society Programs, no-fault divorce, social engineering in public schools, no-fault divorce, juvenile court system, teen pregnancy and reproductive technologies have all had unintended consequences upon family law. But take note… SSM intends to redefine the basis of the nuclear family in law. This will have far reaching and broad consequences to all Today gay and lesbian activists through Planned Parenthood, Gay & Lesbian associations, and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund systematically work against the interests of the nuclear family to advance SSM through the courts.
dk: Elian was a character in a David v. Goliath story sensationalized by media. The INS had the boy in custody, and was obliged to keep him save until his status was determined. Instead they caved to the media pressure to surrender the boy to the custody of relatives. The midnight commando raid by Reno was Waco-esk in scope. One accidental shot turns into a blood bath followed by a week of riots. This was a fiasco of epic proportions that threatened the welfare of hundreds of thousands of good citizens. The decision process, if it can be called that, turned a public interest story into an international incident, then brought a whole city to the brink of rebellion culminated by a midnight commando raid to extract a small boy from a private residence. Good job INS, family courts, and Justice Department, “You the man”. Do you see the connection?
dk: I personally am an advocate of the nuclear family, so unless a particular member of the nuclear family posses an eminent threat to another family member its none of the government’s business. Were I King, hehehehe, the state would only take custody of a child for the sake of the nuclear family, you don’t shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs. Today many teenagers reign in terror over their homes. The mission of schools, social workers, and councilors supports the nuclear family. Today these government agencies often work to play family members against one another to pleasure their personal careers, advance personal agendas. Government bureaucrats, demagogues, and judges have no crystal ball to prescribed a “a child’s best interests”. Justice requires these agencies and bureaucracies to respect a family’s autonomy not divine or engineer a solution. .

FOIL: I'm afraid I don't understand what it means to "cut the parent-child bond in favor of the x-family". Do you perhaps mean a situation analogous to the hypothetical you posed, above (with the lesbian mom)? If so, I have to ask how that is any different from the hypothetical I posed other than one is a SSM and one an OSM? In other words, the application of law seems to me identical in both, but your claim is that it would be different for both is SSM were a reality. I must admit I just don't see it yet.
(snip) dk clipped (snip)
Well, frankly, no.
Nothing that you've provided so far gives me any information on how SSM will necessarily have the "broad, far-reaching" impacts on current law that you argue it will have. I read the article you posted, but find that I can substitute a male for one of the females involved (in the lesbian relationship) and still come out with a situation that is possible today.
dk: “Minnesota’s Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to grant joint legal custody to three parties, the biological father, the biological mother and her same sex partner. The case entitled In Re: LaCappelle v. Mitten; In Re the Custody of: L.M.K.O. has set off a firestorm of controversy regarding parental rights.” ----- http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/jointcus...lesbianlover1/

You didn’t read very far… Further the natural mother and father’s can’ be swapped out for opposite sex doubles, and if the co-mom becomes a man the whole scenario simply disintegrates. In other words you can’t just swap sex doubles to arrive at the outcome the Minnesota courts legislated.

FOIL: Perhaps you could help by detailing exactly what different sorts of issues courts will have to consider when SSM becomes a reality. As it is, I don't see any reason to believe that current law is insufficient to deal with the situations posed with SSM. The only material difference I can see is that both of the parents are of the same sex; otherwise, current law covers all possibilities.
dk: I already have.

dk: No, they are subject to the same adoption laws as everybody else. SSM intends to change the law, and the gay and lesbian rights movements works systematically to undermine the nuclear family today through the courts. .

FOIL: Again, I'm really at a loss to discern the principle by which you reach these decisions. In current case law, biological rights are NOT absolute. Therefore, there are times when marital or other parties rights ARE equal to or supervenient upon them. If that is already the case, and it is, how can SSM possibly be the cause of a situation that already exists?
You could really help here by delineating what you see as the legitimate limits, if any, to the rights of natural parents, and then delineating how SSM will necessarily change current case law. So far, in all of your examples it's been possible to substitute sex freely without any affect to the resulting outcome.
dk: Everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. To legalize SSM changes the laws for all families. In four states laws have been adjudicated to accommodate adoption for same sex unions. In my opinion the courts have no business legislating from the bench. Courts loose all credibility when they sleep with social activists. Justice has no meaning when judges become social activists.
(snip)
dk: We are all connected by the Rule of Law. SSM has broad and far reaching impacts upon the law. Forty years ago the divorce rate and children raised by unmarried women were both under 5%. Today the divorce rate is 50% and 30% of children are raised by single mothers. The CDC reports “Nearly 6 of 10 children living with a single mother were near of below the poverty line. About 45% of divorced mothers and 69% of never married mothers lived near or below the poverty line.” ----- (Children with Single Parents -how they fare). It took sociologists 30 years to figure it out. A colossal failure of social engineering, the Great Society and sociology.

FOIL: You've laid out a great deal of information that you claim supports your case, but, and I'm sure that I speak for many of the other participants, you really haven't connected any of that information to your argument. You've asserted that it's connected, but you've consistently failed to specify or delineate the connection. I've been asking questions in an attempt to discern exactly what that connection might be, but so far I've been unsuccessful.
dk: We are connected by the law, we are a nation of laws. SSM intends to change the laws. I really think you’re looking past the obvious to find the obscure.

dk: Its not the answer you wanted. The parents of the nuclear family are in the best position to speak for the interests of their children. I didn’t specify natural or adopted parents. The last 40 years have made it abundantly clear that courts, sociologists, and government in general haven’t a clue of what’s in the best interests of the children. My God under their tutelage “60% of the children of single mothers live on or below the poverty line and 50% of all children are considered AT RISK”. The disintegration of the nuclear family lays before the clay feet of the opinion makers, social scientists and courts that engineered a mess A nation, civilization or culture that can’t raise and educate children has no future. You playing the Pied Piper, the people and tools you seem to hold in such high esteemed have proven incompetent and unreliable, when politics and sociology collide.

FOIL: I find it difficult to believe that this is really what you're saying, but absent your actual answer to my question, I'm unable to figure it out. Perhaps when you address the "limitations on biological parents rights" question, I'll have a better idea where you stand.
dk: I advocate for the nuclear family. Natural parents rights should be subordinate to the autonomous nuclear family that speaks for the interests of the children they raise.

FOIL: So, a clarification would be beneficial to me in understanding the principle you're using. You seem to be saying that biological standing trumps any other considerations, but I'm not sure. Is that in fact what you're arguing?
dk: I advocate for the nuclear family.

dk: I advocate for the nuclear family, so the autonomy of the nuclear family trumps all parental rights of any kind. .

FOIL: I'm afraid your response really doesn't help me to understand your position. I'm not sure what's causing the ambiguity. Perhaps if I explain my motivation and rephrase the question: I'm trying to determine what the "guiding principles" behind your line of argument are. You've said several things that would seem to lead me to believe that you give biological relationships priority over any other considerations. I'm merely trying to determine if that is the case.
dk: That grieves me foil, but I still advocate for the nuclear family.

dk: A fundamental judicial principles is stare decisis, that puts the interests of the court above justice. So strictly speaking the courts in loco parentis for children balance conflicting interests.

FOIL: Okay, now to rephrase my question: In an objective setting, with conclusive evidence presented and considered, both of the parents in an n-family are determined to be abusive. By any objective consideration, the children could be at risk to their safety and a determination of best interests must be made. Which of the following options would you favor:
dk: I have no idea what constitutes abuse, so lets say both parents are IDUs and leave the kids alone for days at a stretch. The parents should be put into jail, their parental rights removed, and the kids put up for adoption to a nuclear family. In the interim foster care becomes the only viable alternative. I wouldn’t place the kids with a relative, unless the relative were willing to adopt the child.

dk: You question wasn’t straightforward, or even real, but loaded with contrived premises directed at a false dilemma. In the real world a social worker walks into a home unannounced as an inquisitor to evaluate the parents fitness, parents have no legal recourse, and the family is put into the system without recourse. If the kids are taken into custody, then the parents are put through a ringer leaving the kid in limbo for years, unavailable for adoption and shuffled from one foster home to the next.

FOIL: Given these facts that are beyond dispute:
* some parents abuse their children.
* some of these abusive parents abuse their own biological children.
* child abuse has serious consequences reaching beyond the immediate danger to the child's health.
Why is is so difficult for you to conceive a hypothetical situation in which a decision might need to be made regarding the welfare of a child in an n-family?
dk: What some parents do, doesn’t reflect upon all parents or any specific parent. If parents pose an eminent threat to the health and welfare of the child, the parents need to be criminally prosecuted, convicted, stripped of parental rights, and the children put up for adoption. My problem starts with the social worker acting in the role of an inquisitor, and the parents being denied due process. That’s the facts. .

dk: Hey you asked the question, and I answered it. The foster care system is abusive, but that’s a separate institutional question. It’s a factored of the decision, if the decision takes into account the child’s best interests.

FOIL: You don't seriously believe that all n-families are loving & nurturing and that all foster familes are evil, do you? I don't think you do, but that's what your dancing around the answer to this question is beginning to look like.
dk: No. But as I’ve said again and again I advocate for the nuclear family.

FOIL: SSM might contribute a stable and loving multiple-parent home to an abused child desperately in need of some love and direction, but that's not really the point. The issue is whether or not SSM will necessarily cause MORE problems than exist today. Whether or not SSM has any positive effects is another issue entirely. To be honest, I don't care. If it could be proven that SSM families were not suitable to child-rearing, I'd have no problem with their ineligibility as adoptive parents. As far as I'm concerned, it's a separable issue.
dk: There are lots of studies. Most conclude there are differences in children parented by SSM, whether these differences are negative depends on one’s perspective on homosexuality. That really isn’t my point, SSM embodies ramifications that affect all social institutions and social services. We are a nation of laws.

FOIL: Oddly enough, I have reviewed the Moynihan Report. The actual correlations don't appear to be anywhere online (if you have a link, that would be appreciated). However, unless they represent factor-analytic studies, they won't yield the answer for which I'm looking. As it is, the Moynihan report itself doesn't seem to reference any single-factor causality and in fact seems to indicate very strongly that there are other factors at work.
dk: Factor-analytical studies that might have been performed, duplicated and verified were left undone because the Report was trashed as “Blame the Victim” rhetoric, when politics and sociology collided.

FOIL: This is an excellent illustration of why I'm asking some of these questions. The point you're making here, that "boys without a healthy male role model..." does not appear to be supported by the data you invoke.
dk: That’s news to me, how so?

FOIL: What's not to follow? You said that "boys without a healthy male role model are statistically the most dangerous of all." I'm calling your attention to the fact that the data upon which you rely to make that statement does not support that inference.
dk: Please explain?

FOIL: "Lack of a healthy male role model" is only one of a number of factors that are correlated with that specific negative outcome. In order to make the statement that you made, one would have to either use factor analysis (essentially multiple regression in a matrix) to "separate" the influence of each possible causal factor. You can then get separate R^2 values for each variable. Straightforward regression gives you one R^2 for the lot and separate correlation coefficients for the individual variables, but without a factor analysis, even those correlation coefficients are affected by any auto-correlation between variables that is present.
dk: There are only two variables correlated by the DOL necessary to establish Federal Welfare destroyed the black family, 1) benefits paid per household and 2) unemployment. The correlation was tracked from the 1935 with ADFC, and remained very close to 1 for decades. These guys counted the checks they mailed out against unemployment data indexed to the census. This had nothing to do with the questionnaires, or subsequent vector analysis that might have followed. Nonetheless, it took social scientists 30 years to acknowledge the importance of the Nuclear Family to a community. When politics and sociology collide the necessary problem statements becomes unacceptable. All Moynihan nailed down was the affect of welfare benefits upon the Black Family. The subsequent causal analysis is speculative, a day late and flawed by political interests and powers of the day. You brought up the importance of a healthy male role model, I simply said it didn’t exist after the black family disintegrated. It still doesn’t exist in inner city black communities. This calls to mind the Humpty Dumpty rhyme, “All the King’s men and all the King’s horses couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.’ After the government destroyed the Black Family, unintentionally, their social engineers, bureaucrats and educracy couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It’s a whole new game today, and when politics and sociology collide they both become unreliable.

• FOIL: I'm not sure where you got THAT from, but it's nowhere to be found in the Moynihan report. In fact, the report specifically states that the rising welfare rates were caused by the breaking up of familes rather than the other way around. It's the title of the sixth paragraph:
  dk: The subsequent analysis is irrelevant, what’s relevant is that the Moynihan report only became significant after 30 years, in hindsight. This strikes at the heart of the social sciences, sociology and social engineering, and demonstrates… When politics and sociology collide, sociology becomes malleable and unreliability.
• Quote:

  Pat Moynihan: Let me go back just a bit, in terms of what has happened in this century. When the Kennedy people came in, we were getting a feel of what to do, but we weren’t sure and unemployment was the big issue domestically. The attention was focused on places like Appalachia, and we were beginning to be very much aware of the problems of black Americans, especially in cities. I’ll give you an example here, Ben. In 1946, we did, in fact, produce an unemployment rate. Didn’t publish it; weren’t sure enough. But in that unemployment rate, black unemployment was well below white unemployment, because blacks were on farms, and on a farm you may have, you know, scarcely enough to live on, but you are employed. When them movement north came and into cities came, black unemployment became a problem. And I began to see how we could track the rise and fall of unemployment rates with other indices of social well-being, such as married woman, husband absent, and such as the newly rising number of persons who were getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program that was begun under the Social Security Act of 1935, which was supposed to have disappeared by now -- because you’d have survivors’ insurance, and that will take of mother and children. But it wasn’t disappearing; it was growing. Now, what’s this all about? Well, I was -- to make it short -- I was able to show a striking correlation between the rise and fall of unemployment and the rise and fall of things like married woman/husband absent; a number of new welfare cases, as we would come to call them. And it was just dramatic in the 1950s; the correlations were up in the 90s. I mean, you don’t get correlations in the 90s. Then, in the late ’50s, it began to weaken, and in 1963 that correlation had disappeared. Suddenly, the unemployment rate for minorities, as well as everybody else, was going down; and the dependency rate, if you want to put it that way, was going up. [color=red]The lines crossed. ----- http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1108.html

• FOIL: Just what I said: Moynihan notes that there is an existing socio-economic factor, unrelated to the presence of a male parent in the family, that affects negative outcomes for white children: "White children without fathers at least perceive all about them the pattern of men working."
  [color=red] In other words, children who lack a male parent are at less risk due to a factor in the environment in which they are being raised. That is positive evidence that "lack of a male parent" is not the sole factor influencing negative outcomes.
• dk: I don’t see it. You’ve drawn a causal relationship from inference, “[color=red] in other words” simply doesn’t compute. It’s a fact that white family’s weren’t destroyed by welfare benefits at the same rate as more vulnerable Black Families, but the historical record doesn’t indicate white families were immune. Since 1965 the number white single mom’s has risen steadily, tripled, and continues to rise The point is once [color=red] the lines crossed in 1963 all bets were off, there was a window of opportunity that opened briefly, then slammed shut because the report got trashed as “more blame the victim” rhetoric. Moynihan in 1965 attributed the vulnerability of the Black Family to a racial virus, and the beating Black communities took from 3 generations of Jim Crow Laws under the federal courts decision of Plessy v. Ferguson (around 1900).

dk

dk: Really, it’s called Monihan's scissors. You might want to look up Monahan’s essay, Defining Deviancy Down, he explains “How We've Become Accustomed To Alarming Levels Of Crime And Destructive Behavior.", saying, “...over the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of 'old' standards, and accounts for much of the present 'cultural war' such as proclaimed by many at the 1992 Republican National Convention."

dk: If “good statistics” alone were sufficient then 50% of Children in the US wouldn’t be tagged at risk. When politics and sociology collide people, even statisticians and sociologists become committed to meaningless studies when meaningful conclusions make them feel bad. Moynihan’s discovery was an accident, but was rejected out of hand because it made the leadership and intelligentsia of a great social movement look and feel bad, and the one thing a great leader and his committed intelligentsia can’t afford is to look bad before their enthralled committed constituency.

FOIL: Correlation coefficients provide grounds for causal inference, but in the case of complex situations, like this one, simplistic reduction to one or two causes is often not possible. It's certainly not possible to make such inferences validly when all the evidence one has to go on is the result of multiple regressions. When auto-correlation exists, as it certainly does here, only a factor-analytic study can even get close to determining the true correlations of individual variables to the outcome. None of the information you've provided so far comes close to providing this. None of the studies you've examined even tried to do what you claim they do, least of all the Moynihan report.
dk: Consider this Foil, from 1935 to 1955 factor analyses would have lumped the variables 1) benefits and 2) unemployment together because of the high correlation. Until 1960 they appeared to be dependent variables that suddenly became independent. In other words factor analysis doesn’t necessarily provide a set of independent meaningful vectors that describe an underlying causal system. Factor analysis isn’t the last word on the road to certainty, rather a positive but insufficient conditional necessary to linear causal relationships. Not all causal relationships are linear, and many causal relationships that appear valid one moment become unstable the next. As PT Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every second”.

FOIL: If I'm unable to "wrap my mind around" them, it's because they simply aren't "simple facts", no matter how much you want to believe they are.
dk: The rationale to explain the underlying relationships between the two might be impenetrably complex, or even fluid. We don’t always find what we want.

FOIL: I also thought I'd touch on a few other issues that came to my mind during the last couple of days.
You have said repeatedly that you're concerned with "third-party" interests in the n-family. However, even in a society composed exclusively of n-families, third-party interests are impossible to avoid.
Consider that even if no family ever divorced or broke up and no parents were abusive, some parents might still be killed accidentally or die prematurely due to illness. The children must be cared for, and in cases where both parents have died, it will be impossible to avoid a third party interest.
dk:: That’s not exactly what I’ve said. By the nuclear family I mean an archetype, not a moral or rational law. In my opinion, it appears to me, stuff happens sociologically we can’t begin to explain or understand when a nation, culture or civilization deviates from the basic archetype (nuclear family). The x-family lacks the independence of the nuclear family and therefore greatly complicates a coherent analysis.

FOIL: But even more compelling is that your own argument depends upon the need for third-party interests. In any society, all individuals have a stake in how other individuals raise their children. You've provided tons of data to support the idea that negative outcomes follow ineffective or defective parenting. Because those negative outcomes may indeed affect me, I do care and must care about how you raise your children (and vice versa). So the issue of third-party interests with respect to any family is effectively moot.
dk: Its not moot to husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and children that appear before the courts empowered to assign custody and speak for the child’s best interest, and family courts speak for over 1/3 of all US families. SSM intends to change the laws, and therefore connects us all, as one nation because we are a nation of laws.

FOIL: You've also claimed that the n-family is "autonomous" and "self-replicating", but as I've demonstrated above, "autonomy" only goes as far as the rights of the next guy. Autonomy certainly isn't absolute. And n-families certainly aren't self-replicating unless genetic abnormalities and an increased risk of mental retardation is a good foundation for a society. The n-family is just as dependent upon society for it's continued existence as you argue society is upon it. So, the issues of autonomy and self-replication are also moot.
dk: We are a nation of immigrants that migrated from around the world as intact family units. While I agree the nuclear family isn’t immune from the influences of society, culture, technology,,, etc… the US experience presents strong evidence that the nuclear family does afford people autonomy from governments and nations. The vast majority of immigrants from around the world migrate to the US as nuclear families for the opportunity to experience the American Dream. Moynihan’s Scissors shows the nuclear family can be dissolved by social engineering, but no rational society would do such a thing on purpose?… Why would they?

What made the style of slavery and Jim Crow Law practiced in the US so destructive was its hostility to the Black nuclear family. The hostility was based on the idea that one drop of black blood makes a white person black and inferior. Black children as Thomas Jefferson so scandalously demonstrated were denied fathers because aristocrats like Jefferson denied paternity. In my opinion this is what was so uniquely destructive about the Black experience in the US.

FOIL: Finally, I wanted to reply to your post regarding the arguments for SSM. I actually wouldn't advocate ANY of these and they seem more like parodies of arguments than the arguments themselves.
dk: I advocate for the nuclear family. SSM is hostile to the nuclear family because it deprives children of a father for a co-mom and a mother for a co-dad. You don’t like my argument because you’re committed to the prospect of SSM. I understand.

FOIL: To my mind, civil marriage is nothing more than the legal recognition of a binding relationship between two people. As such, we grant it certain social and economic privileges (tax benefits, property transfer, civil responsibilities, etc.) in our society. Unless these privileges are provided solely on the basis of or motivated by an interest in child-rearing, there should be no reason why any adults in a committed relationship should not be accorded the same privileges. As even childless OSM couples receive these benefits, it begs the question why childless SSM couples should not.
dk: You’ve undermined your own argument by debasing the nuclear family as “nothing more than the legal recognition”. The nuclear family speaks for a child’s best interests, the statistical evidence is overwhelming. You presume people are motivated and moved purely by material concerns, when in fact man does not live by bread alone.

dk

RevDahlia: I slogged through about half of this thread and gave up in disgust, so I apologize if this post is repetitious. If my points have been addressed already, feel free to ignore them.
dk: No problemo, the thread is largely repetitious ad hominem chit chat.

RevDahlia: What strikes me is that the complaints which have been made about "gay culture" (whatever that is) have exact parallels in "straight culture" (whatever that is.) I am not "rationalizing" bad behavior by anyone. I don't believe that straights being scummy justify queers being scummy. I merely seek to point out that we are not so different, on the whole.
dk: As scum go, I'd call your complaint an example “Defining down delinquency ”. The reference to gay culture alleges an identity based upon “promiscuous values and pornographic landscapes”. But permit me to examine the pornography issue more closely. Gay culture celebrates pornography in the name of sexual liberty, as a thing of beauty and sexual liberty. If you can find any gay association or organization that takes a stand against pornography, I’ll withdraw the allegation. This should be easy, except for one thing, there are no gay organizations or associations that oppose pornography.
This doesn’t imply that all gay people promote pornography or identify with pornography, the complaint is narrowly directed at the Gay Rights Movement. While many heterosexuals are scum, and many more buy porn for use in the privacy of their home, many also fight diligently to deter the porn industry. Most people oppose pornography in the public square but grudgingly concede it under the broad umbrella of free speech rights. In any case it’s a rationalization of unacceptable conduct to suggest that heterosexual scum justify homosexual scum.

RevDahlia: Assumption: That "gay culture" encourages sexual contact between adults and teenagers.
dk: I’m not sure why you’ve excluded “gay culture” from encouraging adult sexual contact with prepubescent children. Again, if you can find even one gay association or organization that promotes chastity to youth or lobbies to raise the age of consent for gays or heterosexuals I’ll withdraw the allegation. That should be easy except for one thing, there aren’t any.

RevDahlia: Parallel: If the spam in my inbox is any indication, "straight culture" glorifies sex between adult men and teenage girls, to a truly icky degree. True that the models in "teen porn" are legally required to be 18, but the idiom exists to imply that they are not. Dominant culture (when I use this term I mean American culture, as it is the one in which I live and of which I have the most knowledge) positively fetishizes teenage girls. Abercrombie and Fitch markets thong underwear to 12-year-olds, for heaven's sake.
dk: You can’t rationalize gay scum with heterosexual scum. There are many associations and organizations dedicated to get these scum off the air. Inexplicable none of these organizations or associations represents the Rights Movement…Why?….because the Gay Rights Movement only pretends to value family. Get it, because scum exist, doesn’t make being a scum normal or acceptable.

RevDahlia: Also, it's my understanding that most sexually active teenage girls are sleeping with adult men. I do know that adult men father most teen moms' babies, and teenage girls who wind up with STDs frequently acquire them from adult partners. Is this more acceptable than 16-year-old boys getting it on with "Daddy" at the bath house? Why?
dk: Yes scum exists, but that doesn’t give gays the right to scum-alize vulnerable youth in the public square. The Gay Rights Movement advocates promiscuity to youth. All good people have an obligation to keep the public square safe and accessible to youth and families.

RevDahlia: Assumption: That "gay culture" promulgates pornographic landscapes.
Parallel: Have you driven down the freeway lately? Seen the billboards? Looked at a Victoria's Secret catalog? Watched a beer commercial? "Straight culture" abounds with pornographic and semi-pornographic imagery. By "pornographic" I mean "that which depicts sexual material with an eye to the financial bottom line". I don't think that lack of visible naughty bits disqualifies something from being porn. (I also don't object to porn, but I think it's ludicrous to assert that pornographic public imagery is confined to "gay culture".)
From Tijuana Bibles to "Deep Throat" to the Hustler store, pornography has been an intrinsic part of straight culture for decades. Perhaps heteros just don't notice it anymore?
dk: ditto, find me one gay organization or association that has issued a policy statement against pornographic landscapes and I’ll concede the issue, that should be easy, except their aren’t any. In fact, if you visit any of the many gay associations, recruiters and marketers for SSM, you’ll find any policy statement against pornography conspicuously absent. RevDahlia please prove me wrong, go out there and find any gay association that promotes SSM with a policy statement against pornography, and I’ll withdraw my allegation. That should be easy, the problem is there aren’t any.

RevDahlia: Assumption: That "gay culture" values promiscuity.
Parallel: Whoo boy. What about the endless snarky jokes about how promiscuous straight men are? How about the assumption that straight guys will go through women like Kleenex until they are snared by a crafty female? The common idea that straight men just want to get it on with as many hot girls as possible, and loathe commitment? The fact that our athletes, actors, and musicians get crazy 'tang, and that this is seen as being a perk of the job by most people? How is a backstage groupie orgy any more legitimate than a circuit party?
Example: Actor Colin Farrell, recent arriviste, is widely reputed to be a real wolf. Letterman and Leno make wink-wink nudge-nudge comments in interviews with the guy. Finally, he knocks up some model. Public outcry? Nope -- (straight) boys will be (straight) boys, right?
dk: We live in a society enthralled by celebrity, especially celebrity scandals. This doesn’t justify group sex any more than a gapers traffic jam justifies a deadly traffic accident, for the sake of our viewing pleasure.

RevDahlia: Assumption: That gay culture emphasizes anal intercourse.
Parallel: Again, I refer you to my inbox. "Hot Wet Teen All-Anal Action". Anal sex is practiced by straights with some frequency. There's a whole genre of porn (straight people look at porn? you're kidding!) dedicated to anal. many straight men consider it the Holy Grail. Conversely, speaking as a dedicated fag hag, it's my impression that many gay men don't much like anal and don't engage in it.
dk: hmmm, what I hear from Lambda Legal whose mission statement reads: “Mission Statement: Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the transgendered, and people with HIV or AIDS through impact litigation, education, and public policy work.” http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/about
It appears Lambda Legal differs with you on the matter of gay anal sex…

1. Lambda Legal Urges U.S. Supreme Court To Overturn Texas’s ‘Homosexual Conduct’ Law; Dozens of Respected and Diverse Groups Step Forward in Support (January 16, 2003): WEB
2. Key Virginia Legislator Says Sodomy Law Should Disqualify Gay People from Being Judges; Lambda Legal Says Comments Again Show How Widely Sodomy Laws Are Used To Discriminate (January 15, 2003): WEB
3. U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Lambda Legal’s Challenge To Texas ‘Homosexual Conduct’ Law (December 2, 2002): WEB.

There

RevDahlia: To sum up, dominant culture is highly sexualized. I do not think that this is a bad thing necessarily. Unfortunately, dominant culture also emphasizes selfishness and disrespect for others, and the problems related to sexual activity -- gay or straight -- may be attributed to a lack of respect.
We all need to clean up our act, to use dk's words, and be responsible and treat our partners well. No matter which gender turns our crank.
It is specious, bigoted and dishonest to focus on irresponsible queer behavior without also examining similar (if not identical) hetero behavior.
dk: To be honest I find this a difficult issue, but the impacts of SSM marriage upon the nuclear family compels me to advocate for the nuclear family and against SSM. The Gay Rights Movement brought the issue to the table for a pubic debate. An issue of such magnitude and scope requires our education, attention and participation, even if the substantive facts make us feel bad when we want to feel good.

RevDahlia

I think you misunderstand me, dk.

I was not, as I stated right at the beginning, attempting to "justify" bad behavior by anyone.

I was just suggesting that if you have a problem with a behavior, it is not fair to attack one group for engaging in it when another group is doing EXACTLY the same thing.

So some straight people object to adult-on-teen porn, public explicit pornographic displays, et cetera. How does this "justify" the fact that many, many, many more straight people produce such images and indulge such fantasies?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

dk

You many not believe this, but it was/is not my intend to attack gay people. There are gay people I know, love and honor as friends. My allegations are directed at the Gay Rights Movement and its many tributaries and alliances that promote SSM through the courts, public schools, education, and social science. I'm no puritan. Bad stuff exists and has always existed. The idea of treating homosexuality or homosexuals like a social disease is in and of itself a heinous proposition. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and homosexuals are every bit as much a part of the human family as George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Confusions, and Bob Jones. Humanity benefits from their existence and is made poorer by their oppression. I advocate for the nuclear family, and because SSM intends to dissolve the nuclear family I am adamant in my defense and tend to be over zealous.

RevDahlia

This was your first post in the thread, dk; it does seem a bit overzealous if all you intend is to criticize the tactics of the gay rights movement and gay marriage advocates.

Dr Rick

dk

These are substantive issues. These are all good reasons for gays to reform their public image, denounce thier leadership and policy. I frankly don't understand why they allow themselves to painted so henously by their leadership.