Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

"Paul Blay" ) writes:
"Jim Davis" wrote ...

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?"

Why the negative phrasing?

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole.

I'm going to tell you why you're wrong, in this statement, and I'm
going to do it with an example that is 100% on-topic for ssh...

With STS-51L, the burden was, show that it's unsafe, and failing
that, we're launching.

With post AS-204, the burden was, show us that it's safe, or
we're not launching.

See the difference ?

Now, with marriage, much has already been done, in the name of
" fairness and equality " to destroy the institution, so I'd
say that we've passed the STS-51L learning point quite a time ago,
and further begging of that standard only exposes the failure
of that position.

Although given that they _are_
part of society as a whole it will by definition be beneficial to
society as a whole (on average) if it is beneficial to them and
not detrimental to others.

" I've got mine, **** you ". Not what I'd call a socially responsible
position...

and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

Marriage may not be a right, but unless it's a 'wrong' I don't see
that there is a solid basis for denying it to that significant minority
that currently can't have it.

Because, *by their own choice*, they fail to meet the qualifications.

Should we go back to pre-STS-51L standards, as thats the same as
what you're espousing on this matter ?

Aren't your views... consistant ?

Andre

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

"Jim Davis" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote:

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?"

Why the negative phrasing?

Negative phrasing? How so?

You're starting from the "No change unless X" angle rather than
the "Change unless Y" angle.

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole. Although given that they
_are_ part of society as a whole it will by definition be
beneficial to society as a whole (on average) if it is
beneficial to them and not detrimental to others.

This is know as the fallacy of composition.

It's simple maths.

Take the universal set (of humanity) divide it into two sets.

If everyone in set A benefits, and no-one in set B is disadvantaged
then the universal set benefits on average. All you have to do is
show that a disadvantage is present to set B, and that said
disadvantage (totalled) outweighs the (totalled) benefit to set A.

If would be the fallacy of composition if I had claimed (for example)
that if it is good for some people to get married then it would be good
for everybody to get married.

See the difference?

Chris Jones ) writes:
Jim Davis writes:

Chris Jones wrote:

For consistency, all state-sanctioned marriages should have
some way of verifying the sanction of the state. What people
who want gay marriage want is to be able to couple without
regard to gender and receive that sanction. To me, people are
people, and two people willing to enter into the contract with
all that entails should have the right.

But marriage is not a right. Marriage is an institution regulated
and sanctioned by the state for the benefit of the state.

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, and I don't see why we should.

Thats not anyone else's problem...

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.

So, we sanction sexual relationships that provide that best
*qualification*, while now, not telling those who wish other
forms of relationships that they're legally not allowed to
hook up as they wish to. We merely say, " if you want the
bennies of the best, then meet the qualifications of the best. "

You don't get to wear a Special Forces badge, just by asking/
demanding for one, either...

[...]

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?" and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

To me there are two questions: is state-sanctioned marriage beneficial
to society as a whole?

Yes.

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

Yes. Same sex couples CANNOT, by self definition, provide a child
with a mother *and* a father.

I am more sure of the answer to the second question (no)

Because you're looking at this issue, as a matter of *enetitlement*,
rather then *responsibility*...

than I am to the first (yes).

Andre



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

"Jim Davis" wrote ...

Because the benefits or otherwise to society are as yet not
known. Examples: the state does not sanction marriage between
close relatives, between adults and children, polygamy, etc
because society does not benefit from such a sanction.

Or because society would be /harmed/ by such a sanction.

Or do you want to take the position that things that are not
beneficial should be forbidden?

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?

That's a slightly different matter.

That's not so much who they couple with, that's who they _reproduce_
with.

Should siblings where one partner has voluntarily been sterilised
be able to marry? I'd be very hesitant to say "yes"
but the only reason I've got for saying "no" is my strong suspicion
that such relationships are mostly likely damaging psychologically
to the parties involved.

Polygamy is even less certain (although polyandry should be thrown
in at the same time). I think that the strong association of polygamy
with sexual inequality is a big minus, but I don't know that you can say
there will _never_ be a situation when one man and two women (or
vice versa) wouldn't be better off all married than not.

"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]

"Andre Lieven" wrote ...
"Paul Blay" ) writes:

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole.

With STS-51L, the burden was, show that it's unsafe, and failing
that, we're launching.

With post AS-204, the burden was, show us that it's safe, or
we're not launching.

See the difference ?

So I suppose you're going right out there to ban smoking and drink,
both of which have been _proven_ unsafe as opposed to merely not
proven safe.

Although given that they _are_
part of society as a whole it will by definition be beneficial to
society as a whole (on average) if it is beneficial to them and
not detrimental to others.

" I've got mine, **** you ". Not what I'd call a socially responsible
position...

Really? That's exactly what your position is of hetrosexual couples
toward homosexuals couples.

and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

Marriage may not be a right, but unless it's a 'wrong' I don't see
that there is a solid basis for denying it to that significant minority
that currently can't have it.

Because, *by their own choice*, they fail to meet the qualifications.

So, two people who are of the same sex have choosen to be of that
sex?

"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

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

"Paul Blay" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote ...
"Paul Blay" ) writes:

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole.

With STS-51L, the burden was, show that it's unsafe, and failing
that, we're launching.

With post AS-204, the burden was, show us that it's safe, or
we're not launching.

See the difference ?

So I suppose you're going right out there to ban smoking and drink,
both of which have been _proven_ unsafe as opposed to merely not
proven safe.

Exception based on harm is solely to one's self.

Children don't get to choose to whom, and in which situation they
get born to. Adults can make their own choices.

To compare the one to the other is fallacious.

Although given that they _are_
part of society as a whole it will by definition be beneficial to
society as a whole (on average) if it is beneficial to them and
not detrimental to others.

" I've got mine, **** you ". Not what I'd call a socially responsible
position...

Really? That's exactly what your position is of hetrosexual couples
toward homosexuals couples.

Nope. Its an *effect*, true, but its based on the homosexual couples
*refusing* to meet the *long standing and tested qualification*.

and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

Marriage may not be a right, but unless it's a 'wrong' I don't see
that there is a solid basis for denying it to that significant minority
that currently can't have it.

Because, *by their own choice*, they fail to meet the qualifications.

So, two people who are of the same sex have choosen to be of that
sex?

Irrelevent. They are, thus they fail, by their choice of whom to
pair up with.

As has been said already, anyone can marry anyone of the opposite
sex ( The qualification ), and theres no " discrimination " to be
found...

Otherwise, your view is akin to claiming that I, as a man, am
" discriminated against ", because I cannot give birth to a child.

As I said, fallacious. Neither birth nor marriage are *entitlements*.
They are responsibilities. One happens to be biologically based,
and the other, biologically deeply connected, in it's functions.
And, qualifications.

Andre


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

Paul Blay wrote:

You're starting from the "No change unless X" angle rather
than the "Change unless Y" angle.

I wouldn't call it negative phrasing; merely phrasing from my own
(and the majority) viewpoint. I don't personally benefit directly
so I am concerned about suffering indirectly.

If everyone in set A benefits, and no-one in set B is
disadvantaged then the universal set benefits on average. All
you have to do is show that a disadvantage is present to set
B, and that said disadvantage (totalled) outweighs the
(totalled) benefit to set A.

Sorry, I missed your "no-one in set B is disadvantaged" premise.

The case has not been made that "no-one in set B is disadvantaged".
The last 40 years have shown that the law of unintended
consequences is not to be lightly ignored.

I repeat that I am not necessarily opposed to gay marriage; I
merely strongly object to the grounds on which it is usually argued
("marriage is a right").

Jim Davis

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:55:00 -0000, "Paul Blay"
wrote:

Should siblings where one partner has voluntarily been sterilised
be able to marry? I'd be very hesitant to say "yes"
but the only reason I've got for saying "no" is my strong suspicion
that such relationships are mostly likely damaging psychologically
to the parties involved.

In California, first cousins are allowed to marry if the woman is over
some age, I think fifty. I know such a couple. No concern in the law
about psychological factors (but cousins aren't sibs).

As you say, in the part I snipped, it's reproduction.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer