Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

(Andre Lieven) writes:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

Fix that problem, and then, you open up a useful territory for
legally recognised relationships, that are different ( Note:
Not " inferior " or " superior " to marriage, just... different )
from marriage, with specific legal rights, obligations and standings.

Yes, but what if two consenting adults say that what they want isn't
something different, but something exactly the same?

They, they have a responsibility to meet the *qualifications* of
whatever it is that they claim to want.

To demand that it be *given to them, without them doing whats
required of others*, is demanding *special priviliges*. And,
unearned ones at that.

To get married, you are not required to have children, or even to be
capable of having children. To raise children, you don't have to be
married. What demand is being made?

Chris Jones wrote:

And I think all arguments against gay state sanctioned
marriage can be called religious beliefs, and people shouldn't
try to impose their religous beliefs on others.

Some arguments, certainly. All arguments, nonsense. That's just
name calling.

Jim Davis

Pat Flannery wrote:

[...]
Actually, the older I get, the more fascinating I find *non*fiction.
There's a lot to read and study and learn and cogitate upon.


Yup, and fiction's not going to be of any real use in understanding the
real world, as it's not how things really are... it's how things really
are in someone else's opinion, or in the case of science
fiction/fantasy, someone else's world, or even universe; It's a rigged
game in which the author already knows what the final outcome is going
to be before the writing starts- unlike the real world- and the events
in the story move it toward that preordained conclusion.

On the other hand, fiction is real good for isolating one particular
aspect of the situation. To give an example that spills over into
your construction of the S-V and S-Ib, there are times when
instructions should use a *line drawing* instead of a *photograph*, so
that the relationship of the parts is clearer.

Also, people tend to be a little hostile to the idea that you are
using them as lab rats, but you are allowed to do experiments with
*fictional* characters.

/dps

Chris Jones wrote:

And the questions we're left with
a should a state treat people differently on the basis of
their sexual preference?

That's not the question. The question is: Is state sanctioned gay
marriage a good idea?

And should people impose their
religous beliefs on others?

Chris, this is unreasonable. Caricaturing all opposition as
religiously motivated is no more proper than caricaturing all
opposition as fascist, or communist, or satanic. You're better than
that.

Jim Davis

Chris Jones ) writes:
Jim Davis writes:

I agree with your second sentence for state sanctioned
marriages. What churches do about their marriages is their
business.
I don't agree with your first sentence, since
following it to its logical conclusion means you're going to
treat people differently on the basis of who they choose to
couple with,

Exactly.

and I don't see why we should.

Because the benefits or otherwise to society are as yet not
known.

I got this wrong. There ARE two questions: should there be state
sanctioned marriage, and should the state treat people differently on
the basis of their sexual preference.

Society, to this point, has answered the first question yes, but...
and the second no, but...

Are such answers for all time ?

Note that those answers have varied a great deal, just in the last
100 years...

and sexual preference is included in the first "but" and state
sanctioned marriage is included in the second "but", and I'm arguing
that neither of those two "but"s should be true.

But, you offer *no positive arguments* in favour of your claimed view.

Case dismissed...

And I think all arguments against gay state sanctioned marriage can be
called religious beliefs, and people shouldn't try to impose their
religous beliefs on others.

I'm against gay " marriage ", and I'm an *atheist*.

So, you're... wrong.

Try again.

Should we be treating
people differently on the basis of who they choose to couple
with?

Oh, certainly we should. Do you advocate that siblings should be
allowed to marry? Do you advocate polygamy?

You're right, I was wrong, hence my modifications above.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

Fix that problem, and then, you open up a useful territory for
legally recognised relationships, that are different ( Note:
Not " inferior " or " superior " to marriage, just... different )
from marriage, with specific legal rights, obligations and standings.

Yes, but what if two consenting adults say that what they want isn't
something different, but something exactly the same?

They, they have a responsibility to meet the *qualifications* of
whatever it is that they claim to want.

To demand that it be *given to them, without them doing whats
required of others*, is demanding *special priviliges*. And,
unearned ones at that.

I may want a Mercedes just like a neighbour, but walking down to
his dealership and demanding one, ain't gonna get me one...

Andre

Equating sexual preference, gender identity and other innate psychological
traits with the desire for a car is a coarse analogy at best and extremely
callow, at worst. What many committed gay couples want is the same rights
and responsibilities afforded straight couples. Nothing more, nothing
less.

Without *earning* them, I do understand that.

If one refuses to learn to drive a car, one has NO claim on a driver's
license...

By your logic and reasoning, U.S. blacks in the 50's (hell, now!)
shouldn't want the same treatment as whites because they don't have the
"qualification" of white-ness.

Ah, I was wondering if anyone was going to drag out the fallacious
race card...

Black families are still families, with a mother *and* a father.

Thus, they meet the qualification for marriage. No problem there,
so your analogy fails.

The same could apply to women until historically recently, or to
Jews in a Christian country, Catholics in a Protestant one, etc.

Or, to 10 years olds wanting to marry, or to 8 year olds wanting
a driver's license...

Bah.

Indeed. Lets do away with all rules.

Pi does equal 3...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
Jim Davis writes:

Claiming marriage as a
"right" is inadequate for state sanction.

In fact, I would argue that the very definition of "rights" applicable
here is "what a state provides for its citizens". So your sentence is
true, but since it's not a question we don't have to answer it. And the
questions we're left with a should a state treat people differently
on the basis of their sexual preference? And should people impose their
religous beliefs on others?

So, gay people who want that " right " *can* impose their religious
beliefs on those who see it differently ?

Funny how that " imposition " is OK, when it goes in one direction,
but not the other...

I say no and no, and it seems to me you
have to be willing to answer those questions differently to justify
outlawing gay marriage

Non sequitur. A refusal to grant a *privilige* is not " outlawing ".

(by the state; I don't expect e.g. the Catholic
Church to allow gays to marry in the church, and I care very little
about that).

Agreed.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

If two people

MS-statement. Its not " two people ", as if any two are OK.

Its a *mother and a father*.

Feel free to show me gay couples that can provide *a mother and
a father*...

are better than one when raising children, that's one
reason for the state (if "it thinks" having better children is its
business) to have marriage. It's not a reason for treating people
differently on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Wrong, when their demand is for a sexually based privilige.

Don't qualify, don't get. Its that basic.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

"Paul Blay" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote ...
And, heres why we do treat different types of couples differently.

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

Er, isn't that proving that a single parent family (specifically one
formed from a failed marriage) is a _bad_ manner to raise children well.
[Big surprise]

It is to the Feminist divorce-is-good crowd...

In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs*
a *mother *and* a father.

I doubt very much if the study could be said to prove that.

shrug Your ignorance isn't anyone 's problem but yours.

I've read the books, and their work is solid. That you don't like
the idea of a scientific basis to oppose gay " marriage " is also
not my problem.

Do you want to debate this, from a position of relative ignorance
of the work, or would you prefer to actually first read the work,
before disMSing it ?

You do know that what you wrote is properly defined as PREjudice " ?

There are
children without either a mother or a father, and some without both, so
clearly, they don't need them (after fertilization).

And, the kids without one parent, but especially the father, do
*worse* in every measureable manner of their lives, from school,
to sex, drugs, and crime, to their own adult relationships.

So, your absurd claim that kids " don't need " both parents is
amply belied by merely checking out whats going in a public
school.

And, my last g/f was a US high school teacher, so I have seen
it on that level, as well.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

"Paul Blay" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote ...
And, heres why we do treat different types of couples differently.

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

Er, isn't that proving that a single parent family (specifically one
formed from a failed marriage) is a _bad_ manner to raise children well.
[Big surprise]

It is to the Feminist divorce-is-good crowd...

In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs*
a *mother *and* a father.

NO same sex couple can provide that. By self-definition. Thus,
the harms to children of divorce also apply to same sex couples.

Andre

Bull****. Cite one rigorous study published in a peer-reviewed and
respected publication that makes the statement that children reared in
stable, gay-couple families are psychologically, emotionally or
economically disadvantaged as a result of the environment in which they
are reared.

This is known as " begging the question ", or " reversing the onus. "

RE-read my comments wrt STS-51L, v/ post AS-204.

Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

If one cannot prove a negative, one *must* ASSume the positive ?

Is that your desire to claim such scientific nonsense ?

Very well. Prove to me that there *isn't* a teaset in 2,000 km
orbit of Mars. If you can't, then " you're just talking out of
your ass ", to hear someone phrase it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.