"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

Roughly speaking, it goes like this:

roughly speaking it doesn’t.

A: Same-gender couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce sexually.

If its not the same union why should it be called marriage?

B: Infertile couples can't reproduce either, so are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

No you are. I am saying same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

So the issue is ability to reproduce.

No the issue is same sex couples.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

And what is that fundamental difference? The ability to reproduce.

As I pointed out the observable fact why are you asking?

One combination can (opposite sex) and one cannot (same sex).

yes but that’s an observable fact you can see, so don’t say ‘according to me’.

You're getting yourself mixed up here. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the heart of the issue is apples.

No you are getting mixed up and confused. A male/female couple may reproduce and a same sex couple cant so you cant compare apples and oranges and say both can get married.

If you are going to take two items and say one should be treated differently to the other, you need to say why, not simply that they are different.

As I said the difference is the observable fact which you somehow cant seem to observe.

Everyone recognises that a same sex couple is different from an opposite one, the question is whether that difference is enough to warrent different treatment.

So why did you ask me to say what the difference when you have now just acknowledged it?

And according to you, it is because one couple ( the same sex one) cannot reproduce and thus reproduction is the heart of your argument.

reproduction is the difference yes and the basis of the reason why the two couples should be treated differently.

 

[Shane Roach]

True

Kind of true. A lot of marriage laws relate to children, but not all of the laws that relate to children are part of marriage laws.

False. A gay couple cannot procreate with each other, but there are other options available- sperm donation, surrogacy.

Marriage laws are about procreation and child rearing, Therein lies the difference that you keep avoiding. Until you can address that concern you are not addressing my argument.

Artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy and whatever other issues are not covered in marriage. They are already governed by existing law separate from marriage. Defining them after the fact as part of marriage when they have nothing to do with it is not a genuine argument about the topic of marriage.

False. Gay couples can and do have families that involve dependent children. You claim that marriage is for regulating relationships and exists because of issues relating to children- gay couples have these issues as well. Therefore, to increase sociatal stability, marriage should be available for same-sex couples.

Again, society has an interest in regulating people who actually have kids as well as other aspects of child rearing. Marriage has always been a part of that. It has been broken down, and the damage can be seen. These other issues you raise are legitimate issues, but to conflate them with the actual act of procreation is to do exactly what I keep saying gay marriage does -- redefines marriage in a way that simply defines away concerns that exist in society.

You want to argue that the very act of procreation itself is of no interest to the state in terms of regulation. You do this by defining that portion of the concerns within marriage law away as if it does not exist, when it demonstrably does. Why is that?

I haven't seen anyone argue that family law has nothing to do with families. That would be illogical in the extreme.
People are saying that all aspects of laws relating to families should be extended to all families, however they are formed.

And I in my turn have not seen anyone argue against that point. What you and others have done however is to deny that there is anything unique at all about procreation itself that might need attention, and for which marriage has always served as a regulation.

This is simply an untrue argument, and as I have repeated, the breakdown of marriage and family has had a demonstrable effect on society.

And your "little exceptions" are other people's real lives. Since you have already stated that you do not believe that gay marriage causes the breakdown of families, what reason do you have for treating tens of thousands of perfectly functional families so badly?

And then, predictably, you try to make a personal attack at the end. It seems impossible that anyone supporting gay marriage can do it in any other way than to attack the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.

I have made this same argument over and over. It is not I, but you and the rest of the supporters of gay marriage who are not addressing the issue. I am doing this for a world full of reasons, not the least of which are my observations of how socialist policies have damaged the fabric of our society and even damaged my own personal life, and yet I am not the one who puts a vicious personal attack at the end of every post I make.

I just want you to see that there are issues here of deep concern that you are not addressing. That's my point, my goal, my hope. It is not about being mean to anyone. Please stop peppering your posts with that sort of presumption about my personal motives.

 

[Psudopod]

Your mischaracterizing the argument, then dismissing it. What you are saying is wrong, no one is arguing.

I disagree, Brightmorningstar is saying that gay couples should not marry because the set-up results in no opertunity for childbirth. If I have misunderstood, he is welcome to correct me.

A. Marriage law is about regulating relations between men and women, and exists because of issues of child bearing and rearing.

Some marriage law exists because of issues of childbearing and rearing, sure. But not all. And those marriage laws still hold and apply even if a couple has no children.

B. Gays cannot have children.

Cannot have children with their same sex partner unaided. As with many things, it's always a bit more complicated. The fact is many gay couples do have children, from previous relationships, surrogacy, ivf etc.
[/quote] C. Gays should not be included in marriage law because there exist no issues of child bearing and rearing with them to regulate. [/quote]
As above, there may be childbearing ( in the case of lesbians) and child rearing. Also, your point C would invalidate the right to marriage for infertile couples (certainly in cases where they knew they were infertile), child-free couples and those who marry after going through the menopause. There exists no issues with childbearing or raising to regulate in those groups.

You are snipping little exceptions to the rule out of the air and arguing that they prove that family law has nothing to do with families, basically. It is demonstrably false. Therefore, you have not made any case whatsoever that it is necessary to include gays in regulations that have nothing to do with their relationships.
History has shown that mucking around with family law has indeed caused a lot of trouble. We now know that the breakdown in the family has caused a lot of trouble among our poor and inner city communities. So it is untrue to argue that changes in family law cannot harm anyone. They already have.

I'm not talking about family law though, I'm talking about marriage. The two are linked, but they are not inextricably linked. And the examples I am pulling out are not unlikely anomolies. About one third of all gay couples have children. On the other hand childfree couples are not rare, neither is infertility or marrying later in life (after the menopause).
Either you are right, and marriage is solely to regulate issues arrising due to childbirth and rearing, and in that case it should only apply to those who do raise children; or it is linked but bound to the issue, and therefore fact that gay couples cannot bare children unaided is not a valid reason to deny the marriage.

I have no way of knowing who you were quoting, but they may well have a slightly different argument. Still, to charcterize the argument I see there the way you have is simply to miss the point, and it is a little shocking to be on about this topic for weeks on and and see the same attempt being made to mischaracterize what is in actuality a very simple to understand argument.

It was directed to Brightmorningstar, who has been making the arguments I have been countering.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
And what is that fundamental difference? The ability to reproduce.
As I pointed out the observable fact why are you asking?

I was being retorical. I wanted you to accept that the difference was reproduction.

[/quote]One combination can (opposite sex) and one cannot (same sex).
yes but that’s an observable fact you can see, so don’t say ‘according to me’. [/quote]
I was just clarifying as you seemed a little confused in your last response.

You're getting yourself mixed up here. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the heart of the issue is apples.
No you are getting mixed up and confused. A male/female couple may reproduce and a same sex couple cant so you cant compare apples and oranges and say both can get married.

Again, I think you've missed my point. I said that from your point of view the difference was reproduction, and you replied, no it was the sex of the couple. I pointed out that saying that was like saying apples should be treated differently to oranges becuase apples are apples. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Everyone recognises that a same sex couple is different from an opposite one, the question is whether that difference is enough to warrent different treatment.
So why did you ask me to say what the difference when you have now just acknowledged it?

I was being retorical. I wanted you to accept that the differnce was ablity to reproduce.

And according to you, it is because one couple ( the same sex one) cannot reproduce and thus reproduction is the heart of your argument.
reproduction is the difference yes and the basis of the reason why the two couples should be treated differently.

And now you have, thank you. So, if reproduction is the important bit, why is it only important for same sex couples. If marriage is inextricably linked to reproduction, why are other groups who cannot or choose not to reproduce still entitled to the institution?
As I said to Shawn, either marriage is inseperable from reproduction, in which case only those who are able to reproduce and chose to do so should be entitled to it. Or marriage is seperate (but linked) to reproduction, in which case the fact that same sex couples cannot reproduce is not a valid reason to deny them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

I disagree, Brightmorningstar is saying that gay couples should not marry because the set-up results in no opertunity for childbirth. If I have misunderstood, he is welcome to correct me.

No careful, that’s not quite right. I am saying that as the same sex couple is fundamentally different from the ,male/female couple, one cant call the same sex couple’s union the same thing,ie marriage.

Cannot have children with their same sex partner unaided. As with many things, it's always a bit more complicated. The fact is many gay couples do have children, from previous relationships, surrogacy, ivf etc.

So what were gays doing in male/female partnerships? If they can they don’t need same sex partnerships, and if they have changed so can others. If they are bisexual then they wont mind being in male/female partnerships.

Also, your point C would invalidate the right to marriage for infertile couples (certainly in cases where they knew they were infertile), child-free couples and those who marry after going through the menopause.

But as has been pointed out the issue isnt about fertility.

 

[IzzyPop]

Marriage laws are about procreation and child rearing, Therein lies the difference that you keep avoiding. Until you can address that concern you are not addressing my argument.

You keep stating this, but you have no backing for it. The vast majority of marriage laws have to do with property rights and inheritance issues, not children.

 

[wanderingone]

You keep stating this, but you have no backing for it. The vast majority of marriage laws have to do with property rights and inheritance issues, not children.

Exactly, and one of the things same sex couples want is equal protection. Annie Liebovitz recently found herself in a lovely financial mess because of having to pay tax on her home after her partner died because the home was an inheritence. Had she been able to be legally married to Susan Sontag her primary residence would not have been viewed as an inheritence.

My friends have to pay taxes every year on the health benefits provided from one of their jobs since they are not legally married, only "domestic partners"

While anti same sex marriage folks glibly point out legal arrangements that might help alleviate certain issues it makes no sense that same sex couples living the same as different sex couples who can marry aren't treated the same.

 

[Belk]

You keep stating this, but you have no backing for it. The vast majority of marriage laws have to do with property rights and inheritance issues, not children.

And apparently marriage laws only have to do with the children who come from the marriage? Those from a previous marriage or adoption are covered under different laws and are never ever addressed by marriage laws?

 

[Belk]

To Psudopod,
No careful, that’s not quite right. I am saying that as the same sex couple is fundamentally different from the ,male/female couple, one cant call the same sex couple’s union the same thing,ie marriage.

And that fundamental difference that excludes them from marriage is what exactly?

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,

I disagree, Brightmorningstar is saying that gay couples should not marry because the set-up results in no opertunity for childbirth. If I have misunderstood, he is welcome to correct me.
No careful, that’s not quite right. I am saying that as the same sex couple is fundamentally different from the ,male/female couple, one cant call the same sex couple’s union the same thing,ie marriage.

But the reason that one is fundamentally different to the other is the ability to reproduce, right?

Cannot have children with their same sex partner unaided. As with many things, it's always a bit more complicated. The fact is many gay couples do have children, from previous relationships, surrogacy, ivf etc.

So what were gays doing in male/female partnerships? If they can they don’t need same sex partnerships, and if they have changed so can others. If they are bisexual then they wont mind being in male/female partnerships.

People can feel pushed to be “normal” often by families. That’s one reason. And just because a person has been male/female relationships in the past does not mean they want to in the future. If I had a relationship with a man, but later in life fell in love with a woman and wanted to marry her, then yes I very much would mind going back to a male partner.

Also, your point C would invalidate the right to marriage for infertile couples (certainly in cases where they knew they were infertile), child-free couples and those who marry after going through the menopause.

But as has been pointed out the issue isnt about fertility.

Fertility is only an issue for at most two out of three of those groups, (you could make arguments either way about post menopausal women). Child free couples may well be fertile, but they don’t have children.

 

[mpok1519]

People are simply afraid of cognitive disonance; having to rearrange the knowledge and info in your head when new info arises that threatens old knowldge is very frightening, especially if youre older, and what you thought to be true turns out to be lies.

Its just fear of having to adjust to new ideas, customs, thoughts, etc.

 

[Wyzaard]

A. Marriage law is about regulating relations between men and women, and exists because of issues of child bearing and rearing.

Regulating relations between same-sex couples because of issues of child bearing and/or rearing would functionally be the same in the law's eyes.

B. Gays cannot have children.

Of course they can. Would you like to speak to Dan Savage about the children he has with his partner?

C. Gays should not be included in marriage law because there exist no issues of child bearing and rearing with them to regulate.

Gays may easily surrogate, bear, adopt, and/or rear children; as such, there needs to be legal recognition and regulation of same-sex couples for the sake of these children (on top of all the other reasons).

We now know that the breakdown in the family has caused a lot of trouble among our poor and inner city communities.

No... class and racial discrimination are the culprits there; socio-economic destitution is what leads to breakdowns in the family, not the other way around.

You're really bad at this, you know?

 

[Wyzaard]

The argument that people are opposing gay marriage because of an untoward motive is simply a personal attack,

Or a principled opposition to mystically-inspired bigotry.

 

[Wyzaard]

You want to argue that the very act of procreation itself is of no interest to the state in terms of regulation.

Actually, the Supreme Court has made it clear in Griswald and in other cases that the state has no say in whether or not couples choose to have children.

This is simply an untrue argument, and as I have repeated, the breakdown of marriage and family has had a demonstrable effect on society.

Heh... no, the persistence of brutal class inequalities break down families.

Do conservatives always mistake chickens for eggs?

I have made this same argument over and over. It is not I, but you and the rest of the supporters of gay marriage who are not addressing the issue.

Your issues have been shown to be bupkiss, so... what else is there to talk about other than your 'issues'?

 

[mpok1519]

families breakdown usually due to economic and social duress, not because of whether or not they go to church, or whether or not they believe in adam and eve or adam and steve.

 

[acomp031]

As usual Stephen T Colbert hits it on the nose
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad | April 16th | ColbertNation.com

 

[Erstwhile_Lurker]

For complete marriage statisitcs in Sweden between 1748-2008, go here

http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____26046.aspx

Here is a key to the swedish words:

Befolkningsutveckling - population change
födda - born
döda - died
invandring - immigration
utvandring -emigration
gifta - married
skilda - divorced

The trend from 2001 and forward has been an increase in marriages.

 

[SughaNSpice]

Regulating relations between same-sex couples because of issues of child bearing and/or rearing would functionally be the same in the law's eyes.



Of course they can. Would you like to speak to Dan Savage about the children he has with his partner?



Gays may easily surrogate, bear, adopt, and/or rear children; as such, there needs to be legal recognition and regulation of same-sex couples for the sake of these children (on top of all the other reasons).



No... class and racial discrimination are the culprits there; socio-economic destitution is what leads to breakdowns in the family, not the other way around.

You're really bad at this, you know?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]nice post – thank you for putting it up[/FONT]

 

[SughaNSpice]

Or a principled opposition to mystically-inspired bigotry.