dk

(SNIP)

1. The nuclear family is the basis (archetype) of civilization. Husband-Wife-children extended family includes Grandparents, Siblings, Uncles,,, etc., and relatives in law.
2. The nuclear family is autonomous, self replicating, stable and resilient.
3. A nuclear family becomes the x-family when the bonds between father(n-n)child -or- mother(n-n) child become anonymous.
4. A family where the children have an unacknowledged or absentee mother or father becomes an x-family.
5. the x-family takes one of the forms… mother&|co-mother(x-x)children -or- father&|co-father(x-x)children.
6. x-families are the norm for inner city back urban districts.
7. x-families may have gay or lesbian parent[s] when a nuclear family disintegrates because First: parent becomes a gay or lesbian, Second: adoption or Third: using reproductive technologies like a surrogate mothers, IVF or sperm donors..

The US is a nation of laws dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal… in the eyes of the Law. Today with a 50% divorce rate family courts assign custody to > 30% of all children. If people are to be treated equally under the law then all custody assignments must be determined without bias for the biological parents. This will affect all children in the eyes of the law, leaving the x-family the dominant form, or archetype of society. To replace the nuclear archetype with the x-family archetype will have far reaching legal implications. It’s conceivable the institutionalization of the x-family will give rise to several new categories of discriminations. The legal ramifications of gay marriage will rip across courts at every level in the land, but its impossible to know how the courts will interpret what x-family means.

So the short answer to your question is that the x-family and nuclear family are connected by the Rule of Law.

FOIL

Okay, but what's the necessary causal link between same-sex marriage and your #3 or #4? A lesbian couple who opt for artificial insemnation need not keep the father anonymous or even out of the picture at all.

#4 and #5 are also not linked for the same reason.

You've also included an additional assumption that Male-Female relationships are essential to child rearing, but I don't see where that's necessarily the case. You've cited several studies (like the Moynihan report) that demonstrates what happens when a parent is missing, but all that really demonstrates, it seems to me, is what happens when the child's support structure is dismantled. Nothing there seems to point to the necessity of the sex of the parents...

But why should biology be the bias in determining parental relationships. Shouldn't what's best for the child be the determining factor? Why should the courts grant custody to abusive natural parents over non-abusive foster ones? Why would we want biological parentage take precendence over the child's best interests?

Consider cases in which children are "switched at birth" in hospitals. Why would the courts even consider returning a 5-year old to his biological parents and taking him away from the only real parents he's ever known? That seems like madness to me. Biology is clearly insufficient to determine a child's best interests.

I don't get this at all. According to your definition, it's already occurred. Courts will already consider the child's best interests before biological relationships. They are already of secondary interest.

I also don't see any necessary connection between your identification of the "x-family" and your vision of "legal ramifications". At its most basic level, SSM is about legal rights. What is it about that alone that will cause husbands and wives to split up and abandon their children? I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I just don't get it.



FOIL

Philosoft

Wow. I was wondering if you were going to pull this out. You do realize, do you not, that if a genetic component exists, your argument amounts to 'homosexuals should at all times consciously repress their drives to engage in sexual behavior'? You would, of course, never ask this of a heterosexual. Why? Because you are question begging - homosexuals shouldn't engage in homosexual acts because homosexual acts are bad. No joy.

The relevance is that your assertion that 'homosexuals are not entitled to "special protection" because it's only a behavior' carries no weight under the law.
Oh, I have no trouble picturing a smirking yguy as I read your posts, I assure you.

Salmon of Doubt

What this means to me with respect to lesbian families, eh? Well let's see. Black children growing up without fathers tend to be among the poorest people in society, often live in poor areas of cities, and are exposed to drugs and violence more than white children without fathers. I'm not saying white kids are all rich, but I don't think the absence of fathers is the only factor that needs to be considered in this situation.

And I don't agree that children always learn what jobs to do from their fathers. It can be a factor, but I don't see why this is so important, and why having two mothers or two fathers would affect it.

A stable loving family, whatever sex the parents are is always going to be better than a family split apart by violence or arguments or any situation where the parents part on bad terms. A family where the participants have the determination, commitment and finances to go about adopting children or having them by artificial insemination surely has to be a family that will survive many difficulties successfully and give the kids a good start in life.

My parents divorced amicably, but if I were hypothetically forced to choose between having two mothers or two fathers who loved me and having parents who fought all the time and split up in an unpleasant way, I would choose the gay family. I admit I would prefer to have two mothers rather than two fathers, but I still don't think it harms children.

Oh and my name is Salmon of doubt, not Solmon of Doubt. Thanks.



I see. So because more crime is committed by men, men should not be allowed to have sex? Just with each other, or with anyone? Maybe crime committed by men is a reason why you feel more threatened, but it's no reason to deny gay men the chance to marry whoever they want.
Do you think gay men commit more crimes than straight ones? If so I'd love to see your statistics!

And do you think we elected those gay leaders? Because we didn't, therefore you cannot attribute the outspoken opinions of a few people as representing the opnions of the majority. I don't know who you think the gay 'leaders' are, because I certainly don't!

What? What scandalous public conduct exactly? Because I've never seen any. I think the most scandalous thing I've ever seen round here is two guys holding hands asking directions to the nearest gay club.

And so men shouldn't have the same rights as women? Do you realise what you're implying here?

yguy

My argument doesn't address what homosexuals should do about their urges. I am merely pointing out that the question of a genetic component to homosexuality is irrelevant to the question of the minority status of homosexuals as compared to that of blacks or women.

I would ask it of anyone. For instance, heterosexuals have no more right than anyone else to have sex under tables in restaurants, despite their urge to do so.

I do happen to believe that, but it's another discussion altogether.

Then maybe it's time to rethink the '64 Civil Rights Act. Why religion needs any protection beyond the first amendment I don't know.

Philosoft

I thought your point was that race and sex were states or conditions, rather than behaviors? A genetic component to homosexuality would go some way toward establishing conditionhood.

*sigh*
Read what I actually wrote and then tell me you would "ask it of anyone."[emphasis added]
It's no big secret. We think discriminating based on religion is nearly universally bad. The First Amendment doesn't address this at all, so we have another piece of legislation that does. It's not the CRA64's fault that it deals your legal argument a fatal blow.

yguy

While we're at it, let's start looking for genetic components for theft, pedophilia, and so forth. What percentage of the activity has to be genetically based to call it a condition? You really look forward to such a lawyer's wet dream?

Makes no difference. I don't advocate bedroom police - never have.

It could only do that if we had some agreement to make consistency with current US law a necessary criterion. You say the first amendment won't cut it, and I say it will. It's all moot anyway, because you are obviously attempting to throw religion into this in hopes of getting me to contradict myself. My point from the beginning has been that homosexuals don't deserve minority status such as blacks and women have, and I've told you why. Homosexuals have no particular right to acceptance by society, and neither does anyone of any particular religion.

Dr Rick

It's still a slippery slope fallacy, though now it's worse with the introduction of your Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle; you attempt to argue that pedophilia and homosexuality are in some way similar, but you don't actually specify in what way they are similar. Pedophilia is not homosexuality, or vice versa.

There's also a strawman in that paragraph; you may be arguing on the basis of a perceived" objective morality, but that dosn't mean we are.

A non sequitur fallacy; age of consent is a completely different issue from legalizing marriage for consenting homosexuals.

The False Analogy fallacy; your oppositon to homosexual marriages is not analagous to opposing sex in public places. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are prohibited from engaging in public sex acts, but homosexuals are allowed to marry their lovers though heterosexuals may do so.

Rick

yguy

In this particular quote I didn't posit any similarity between the two beyond the fact that they would be rationalized in similar ways. Theft is not murder, yet they are both wrong. Same for homosexuality and pedohphilia.

I didn't say you were; in fact I was acknowledging that you are NOT.

Baloney. Each has consequences arguably detrimental to society.

Which is why I never drew such an analogy.

Philosoft

What does homosexuality have to do with theft and pedophilia? You say below you don't advocate "bedroom police." We're not trying to decide if it's a criminal act or not.

See?
And the law says you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. Anyway, I'm curious. I doubt you'll admit to it, but I'll ask anyhow. Did you consider religion a wrongly protected class before I pointed out how it is more similar to your idea of homosexuality than it is similar to race or sex?