dk

2 of 2; the Connection
FOIL: 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?
dk: Ohhhh, raising your own kids isn’t a bias, and that’s what mothers, fathers, husbands and wives do. Allowing the court to take kids away from the parents because the government determines “its in the best interest of the child” is called tyranny.

FOIL: 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.
dk: The “best interest of the child”, actually means, “The government judges what’s in the ‘best interest of the child’”. The US Supreme Court has said the “child’s best interest” presents insufficient grounds to remove a child from his/her home. The Supreme Court didn’t say, -what sufficient grounds might be -, and some state courts have began to chip away at parental rights. Gay and lesbian marriage reopens the issue of custody.
dk: I think you misunderstood. Gay marriage eliminates the bonds that hold the nuclear family together, in law. It appears you believe the nuclear family has already become the x-family. That is not the case.
dk: Who said the courts might make a mistake? Not me. I said family courts make mistakes, but it is impossible for the courts to know, acknowledge or remedy the mistakes they make.
dk: the rule of law..

FOIL: 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?
dk: Today the x-family has no standing before the court, only the nuclear family. SSM gives the x-family standing before the court at the expense of the nuclear family.

Kimpatsu

Such unfairness needs to be changed, then.
No, not at the expense of, in addition to.
Do try to keep up.

keyser_soze

Don't tell DK, but as long as we get the theists plenty of rope to hang themselves publicly, it aids our cause tremendously. I remember reading more than one poster that hinted that magus had helped them to avoid christianity. So therefore, he gets the atheist given MVP from me. I nominate him, and all those whom have avoided xianity with the assistance of his extremely nutty rhetoric second it. Let's all give a cheer for magus and his ilk, DK and yguy!

Hip, hip hurray!

You go guys.:notworthy

FOIL

I'm afraid I still must not understand exactly what you mean here. I quite agree that raising their own children should be the primary responsibility of parents. But what do we do when parents don't accept that responsibility, or worse, misuse it? Do you mean to suggest that a child's biological parents should always be the preferred custodians?

I don't recall a USSC opinion that stated that, but of course I'm not familiar with them all. Could you perhaps post the citation?

It does seem odd, though. If the USSC indeed issued that opinion, what gives family courts the right to remove children from abusive households? It does happen, so there must be some other principle that permits it (if not "best interests").

And I don't understand how SSM "reopens" an issue that isn't closed. Custody issues will exist regardless of SSM or even the "x-family" for that matter. Nuclear families do break up; they're not impregnable to harm. Custody rights are already an issue. The only difference that SSM can possibly make is custody rights when a SSM has adopted a child (or in the case of lesbians, had one through AIns). How can this possibly complicate or affect the custody issues that already exist in the case of OSM? If the court does, in fact, use "best interests" as a guiding principle (even admitting that "best interests" can be problematic), why does the addition of SSM to the existing mix cause a problem that is different from the one that currently exists?

I don't think I misunderstand, but if so, your response doesn't help me clear up my misunderstanding. I said that you seem to be claiming that "biology" is what holds the "nuclear family" together in law. If you could perhaps confirm or disconfirm that statement, my misunderstanding might be abated.

It is interesting, though, to note that the government seems to define "family" as a legal entity rather than a biological one (according to the Census profile). Although your extrapolation from the statistics lists households with "someone else's" children < 18yo as "non families", the Census report does not so identify them. It's also interesting that the percentage of "families" without children or without their "own" children is greater than the percentage with (52% vs. 48%). Certainly not an argument for either side, but interesting nonetheless.

Your statement appears self-contradictory. You say that you never said that courts might make a mistake, but then acknowledge that you said that family courts make mistakes. Perhaps you meant to write something else?

I was asking for you to give me some idea of the "principle" whereby you would have the courts make decisions in those cases where they cannot avoid making decisions. Even in the best of worlds, the "nuclear family" cannot avoid occurrences like death or divorce. How should the court decide custody in these cases if not "best interests?"


Okay, so just to make sure I understand you, do you believe that IF SSM is legitimized, then "the rule of law", by which I understand you to mean existing case law and its application, will cause the failure of existing marriages, the failure of men and women to form families in the future, and parents to abandon their children?

If this is so, I must confess I don't understand the connection. Why should this be the case? I'm married, but I don't plan or expect to leave my wife and abandon my children when the government decides to allow a gay couple to get married. What's the causative factor at work here?

Hmmm. Maybe I don't really understand what you mean by "x-family". You've said that "x-families" exist today and that they are dependent upon the court for their existence. But how could this be so if they have no "standing before the court?

And how does the "x-family" necessarily cause the "nuclear family" to lose what protection it currently enjoys?

FOIL

dk

FOIL: But I still don't see any necessary connection between the "x-family" and all that nasty stuff you've said is going to happen when the "x-family" replaces the "nuclear family". I also don't see any reason why the two can't coexist.
I mean, men and women will still get married and have children, right? SSM isn't going to suddenly cause that to stop is it? So why does the extension of legal rights to SSM necessarily affect these kind of relationships?
dk: The following is a hypothetical to illustrate. The blue is before SSM, the brown supposes SSM becomes legal. In a lesbian household one woman decides to get pregnant and selects a man to father her child. She gets pregnant and terminates the heterosexual relationship without telling daddy she’s pregnant. After the kid is born daddy hears about the rumored birth and discovers he’s the father. He decides to sue for custody. Mom wants her co-mom to adopt the kid. In today’s world, the father can stop the co-mom from adopting because of his parental rights. His parental rights supersede the co-moms adoption rights. Dad sues for and gets custody of the child, end of story. SSM becomes legal. Mom and co-mom marry and counter sue for custody claiming common law marital rights, and win back custody of the child.
1) The biological father has lost his standing before the court, and looses his child.
2) The child looses both his/her home and his/her father
3) The greater issue demotes paternal rights in family courts, for all fathers, and all children. .
- The standing of 3rd Party Rights (co-mom) in custody battles are implicit to SSM litigation, legislation and legalization. There are several permutations of this hypothetical that I won’t go through.
dk: I just submitted a scenario that can be run with several permutations M-W&MM&FF verses. W&M third party interests to literally rewrite the custody laws, and subsequently tort laws, etc… SSM gives third parties standing before the court which doesn’t exist today.

dk: I hope I’ve made myself clear.

FOIL: I also wonder what it means to be "autonomous" and "self-replicating". Individuals in non-marital relationships are also autonomous WRT society and government. Why then are "nuclear families" autonomous and "x-families" are not? Perhaps the answer lies in your definition of "autonomy?"
dk: A nuclear family doesn’t need the courts or government to sustain itself from generation to generation, it is autonomous. The x-family necessarily evokes third party interests that can only be sustained through litigation.

FOIL: And any male-female relationship is capable of self-replication, unless one or both of the individuals involved is sterile. Which raises another issue. Marriages where one or both partners are sterile or who choose not to have children would not appear to be "self-replicating". Are these part of the "x-family" as well? If not, why not?
dk: Absolutely not. Somebody’s got to be responsible for the care, upbringing and education of a child. Promiscuous anonymous sex, sperm banks, IVF and SSM all provide anonymity to a paternal parent and subsequently introduce third parties rights into the x-family, and only the courts can determine whose rights and obligations are what. The courts are forced to tag, assign and assess responsibility for the needs of a child, and also assign liability to an adult for the child’s actions. If my 12 year old kid maliciously burns down my neighbors house, hits a neighbor kid in the head with a brick, sells drugs out of my house, prostitutes themselves, becomes pregnant or impregnates others the courts must hold some adult accountable. I don’t need to tell you how complicated this gets FOIL. In the nuclear family responsibility and liability are contained, once a third party becomes interested the assignments for responsibility and liability expand incomprehensibly. For example today a wife, sibling or child can’t sue a sibling in civil court for monetary damages. SSM introduces a third party with standing before the court, and it is not at all clear who can sue whom for what.

dk: There’s a tug of war going on today between adoptive parents, child rights and biological parents rights within the foster care system. SSM implicitly weakens the standing of biological parents before the court. Today it is common for parents going through a nasty divorce or custody battle (or even feuding neighbors) to anonymously call Social Services with a complaint of sexual abuse against a parent. Social Services walks in empowered to take the children into the system and suspend all parental rights. Once kids are put into the system its anybodies guess what will follow. As I said SSM fundamentally changes the relationship between government and individuals by severing the bonds that hold the nuclear family.

FOIL: In terms of "arbitrarily ordered", marriage, as a legal entity is no less an "arbitrary" ordering regardless of the sex of the participants. It cannot survive without government and is therefore just as dependent upon the government. The specifically legal recognition of a relationship is all that we're talking about here. So, if both types of marriage (SSM and OSM) are both dependent upon government for their existence, how can this possibly be an issue?
dk: I have to disagree. A child has one father and mother with standing before the court. SSM gives standing to a third party that must be factored into the equation of jurisprudence. The addition of a third party into the equation devalues paternal and maternal bonds in favor of co-habitation Rights, marriage Rights and Child Rights. SSM introduces a new variable that fundamentally changes everyone’s standing before the court. For example,,, before Welfare Reform (1994) single mothers assume all the parental rights ascribed to the nuclear family and were rewarded with social benefits to meet the basic needs previously assumed by the Father. It was the benefits that promulgated single parent family from generation to generation in a state of perpetual dependency. Welfare reform put single mothers on a set timeline to terminate their benefits in hopes of breaking the cycle of dependency. I don’t mean to make this more complex but gays and lesbians aren’t the only folks lobbying for government benefits.

FOIL: I suppose you have now clarified your definition of "nuclear family" as one that is specifically biological. However, you've still not answered the question I posed before. Do you believe that biological relationships should form the primary bias in determining a child's best interests?
dk: I have a request FOIL, please don’t write multiple questions into a single paragraph. This question is loaded with presumption. I believe the best interests of child rest upon the nuclear family. Once the nuclear family is broken or amputated it becomes an x-family that puts the child at Risk.

FOIL: In other words, would it be preferable on your view to place a child with its abusive natural parents or loving adoptive ones?
dk: These last two questions are great examples of Begging the Question, i.e. petitio principii. You have already concluded that natural parents are abusive and loving parents are adoptive. I believe the best interests of a child rest upon a healthy nuclear family. I would like to see government, public schools and courts leave behind the “don’t blame the victim” doctrine in favor of doctrine that reinforces the importance of marital vows, commitment and the bonds consummate with a loving nuclear family.

FOIL: Your argument would seem to commit you to the former, but I'd like for you to clarify.
dk: I have no idea what exactly you seem to think I’m committed. For clarity sake, in the future please refrain from begging the question.
dk: I agree the best interests of all children rest upon a healthy nuclear family. I never claimed Moynihan proved anything, he connected “at risk children” with family structure. Neighborhoods where nuclear families are healthy prosper and the children prosper. A neighborhood where the nuclear family has disintegrated puts kids at risk. The 5 categories published by the 2000 Census Bureau support the conclusions of the Moynihan Report. Clearly the best interests of children rest upon a healthy prosperous nuclear family.
1st .Poverty (35% of custodial mothers were poor, ---- Women in US: Bureau of Census) .
2nd Welfare dependence
3rd Both parents absent
4th 1 parent families
5th Parent that has not graduated High School
%50 percent of US Children are “At Risk”.
----- http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9702.pdf

FOIL: I guess in light of your recent comment, can you provide evidence that AT RISK equates to MISSING A FATHER and not to any other socio-economic factors?
dk: Sure, according to the 2000 Census Reports children raised in homes absent a Father or Mother are at risk.

dk

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Such unfairness needs to be changed, then.

No, not at the expense of, in addition to.
Do try to keep up. [/QUOTE]

OK...
That would be substantial, but

• You need to show the unfairness of the nuclear family.
• Then you need a remedy that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

FOIL

Whew! That certainly is a difficult situation, but I don't see the relevance to married couples who divorce or in a situation when both parents die. The question I asked you was how SSM will necessarily change the way such questions are considered today, in relation to the "nuclear family". Your "hypothetical" doesn't appear to touch on that question.

I don't see how you get here. You seem to think that third-party interests don't exist today, but I don't think that's really the case. In situations where the "nuclear family" fails, and it does happen, there are third party interests (grandparents, legal guardians, the state, etc) that are currently part of the "equation". What I've asked for is some understanding of how you see SSM necessarily affecting the situation WRT existing "nuclear families". I must confess I'm still in the dark on your reasoning here.

Well, I can't say that I really understand exactly what you're saying yet, but I don't know that the fault is yours.

You said that the hypothetical you set out would have implications for "traditional" family permutations, but I really don't see the applicability. Perhaps if you used a hypothetical with a "nuclear family" as the basis that would make it clearer.

Okay, I think that this helps a bit. Just to make sure I understand, though, you're saying that non-biologically related "families" cannot be "nuclear families", correct? So adoptive families would necessarily be "x-families", right?

Wait a bit, the question I asked was specifically in reference to IVF/Sperm donation WRT sterile, married OSM. You say that these do not represent "x-families", but then go on to talk about how IVF/Sperm banks "provide anonymity and...introduce third parties rights..." That sounds exactly like what you've said happens because of x-families. How can both of these statements be true?

Why incomprehensibly? Regardless of "x-family" or "nuclear family" (which I'm going to abbreviate as "n-family" from now on) the assignment of responsibility is a matter of law: legal guardianship. In no situation of which I'm aware is reponsibility for the actions of a child ever assigned to non-custodial parents or third parties. If you're aware of such instances, I'd appreciate a pointer to the info.

What! I've never heard such a thing! You mean that I can't sue my brother if he steals from me? Could you point to the relevant case law?

It's certainly a terrible situation when a parent engages in that kind of behavior, but once again I fail to see the relevancy to your argument. Are you suggesting that the state should have no interest in child welfare? Of course mistakes can be made and I'm certainly not saying that the system is perfect, but what's the alternative? Do you mean to suggest that the state should simply ignore or automatically presume the falsity of all such allegations?

And you really didn't answer the question I posed. I'm trying to understand the principles you use in making your argument, so if you could clarify, it would be helpful. Are adoptive families "x-families" or not?

Perhaps I didn't explain my meaning clearly enough. In addition to being a commited relationship, marriage is also a formal legalized recognition of that relationship. It is the legal definition of marriage to which I was referring and that definition has no force without the legal system that gives it substance.

So, in terms of law, it is the legal definition of marriage that provides the basis upon which the rights of married couples (WRT taxes, parental rights, etc) stand. As it is specifically this legal definition with which SSM advocates are concerned, how is the situation any different?

I know that I'm asking a lot of questions, but please remember that I'm trying to understand the argument that you're making.

Are you suggesting here that paternal and maternal bonds necessarily take precedence over whatever might be considered to be "children's rights?"

I included my original question because I think it's relevant to the clarification I'm requesting.

I dont' see where I have written multiple questions in this paragraph. The only presumption I think I've made is that the question will arise at some time regardless of whether SSM exists or not. The "n-family" isn't immune to natural disaster or tragedy, right?. Suppose one or both parents die? Suppose one of the parents is abusive?

Like I said before, I'm attempting to determine the principles upon which you base your argument. One of them seems to be that biological relationships are of primary importance in determining "family". I'm trying to see where the limits of such a principle might be placed. So, in situations where the "n-family" is "broken or amputated", where do the child's best interests lie? Are they always with biology?

Again, I'm including my original question due to its relevancy.

With respect, there are no questions being begged here. I've not concluded anything; I'm merely posing a hypothetical question and asking how you would respond. IF there were to arise a situation in which a child's natural parents were abusive AND a potential adoptive family were loving, would you advocate the primacy of biological rights?

Just to concede my own bias, I believe that the best interests of a child lie within a healthy, loving, supportive, and nurturing family. The "n-family" certainly can (and often does) fit that description, but there's no guarantee that it will. One of the things I'm trying to ascertain is the extent to which the domains of our two positions overlap.

Again, with respect, there are no questions being begged here. I'm not making any arguments, merely asking you questions about yours. All I'm attempting to do is "feel out" the contours of your argument; to gain a better idea of the reasoning you use to support it.

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?

Okay, you've previously identified "n-family" as an OSM with children (biological or not still needs to be clarified as I mentioned above). Now the Moynihan report clearly demonstrated, as I previously mentioned, that it was the absence of fathers that caused the social ills noted, but there were other factors in the report as well that cannot be ignored (socio-economic, etc). My point was not that these factors are dispositive, but merely that the Moynihan report cannot, in light of these, be said to demonstrate that the sex of the missing parent is of sole or even primary importance. Neither does the information from the Census report. In fact, the Census report clearly indicates that the existence of multiple factors greatly increases the risk status of a child. In addition, half of those factors don't have anything necessarily to do with family structure.

What really isn't clear is how that data supports a conclusion that the presence of the male biological parent is essential to child-rearing

Of course. And children in families with both a mother and father and household income below the poverty level, children in families with both a mother and father who are dependent upon food stamps, and children in families with both a mother and father where one of the parents has not yet graduated from high school are also all at risk. But these are all "other socio-economic factors" and thus the Census data, while interesting, really doesn't answer the question I asked:

Is there any evidence that equates AT RISK with MISSING A FATHER (this might need to say "biological", but that would depend upon whatever further clarification you provide) and to no other socio-economic factors?

Thanks for your continued participation!

FOIL

Kimpatsu

• I'm not saying the nuclear family is unfair. I said that the failure to provide SSM with rquality under the law is unfair.
  
  Quote:

  Originally posted by dk Then you need a remedy that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Legalisation of SSM would merely be offering equality to a sizeable minority. What could be wrong with that?

keyser_soze

Is anyone else getting a wierd "atlas shrugged" ayn rand vibe from these people? It's freaking driving me nuts, the thing you can't place your finger on....some murky wrongness...oh well, I digress, leave me to my drink. Move along now.

Kimpatsu

Which people, Soze?
Or is it just the drink?
Bwa ha ha ha ha...