News To Pat Robertson: Married Gay People Are Boring!
Same as married straight people. Married gay people with kids are even more boring. They are not running around WeHo in those leather pants with the butt circles cut out or checking out all the fresh pussy at The Labia Lounge. They are too busy driving their kids to ballet lessons and doctor appointments and trying to raise money to create a library in the charter school. Snore.
Pat thinks otherwise. Via Media Matters, "Pat Robertson suggests the ultimate conclusion of legal same-sex marriage is legal polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, pedophilia":
This would be a problem if a substantial portion of the public gave a rat's ass what Pat Robertson thought, but as it is, like, whatever. He's as relevant as Duran Duran. (I hadn't seen a picture of him since the facelift...)
> Married gay people with kids are
> even more boring.
Children without mothers and children without fathers "bore" you... That's a good thing to know about Amy Alkon.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 2:06 AM
Try "enrage" me, and that's children of single parents. Children of intact families, gay or straight, have good outcomes in the research.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 2:17 AM
Weel, to be fair pedophillian and polygamy have a far loner tradition as form of marrige than the version this bigot is 'defending'
Lets see according to Pat in 1976 the world would end in 1982,
the Pasific northwest was to be hit by a tidal wave in 2006,
a nuke was to go off on american soil in 2007,
and he predicted a recession 6 months AFTER the recession started
He used money sent to him by suckers, I mean, 'the faithful' to mine diamonds for his personal profit - donators thought it was for african medical aid
He's aginst abortion, unless the chinese do it
He claims to be able to lift a ton, and control the weather, and that he directs the course of hurricanes - why anyone harmed by one of the hurricanes he direts hasnt sued, if just to shut him up, I'll never know
lujlp at May 9, 2009 2:21 AM
See the comment here on 5/5/09 at 5:55pm.... This "studies" thing is a loathsome, cowardly canard.
What are we to think of a world where a person has to go to college to learn to read academic "studies" about how to raise a child?
I'll tell you what we should think of a world like that: It's a fantasy, it's a lie. All you want to do is give marriage to gays. You don't care who gets hurt in order to make it happen... Including yourself! You chatter endlessly about how marriage is worth nothing, but that's a principle you'll happily throw overboard just to be on the popular side of this one (at least in coastal media circles).
You really ought to find the courage to present your belief as a straightforward affirmation: You, Amy Alkon are happy with a person living an entire life –not just erotic adulthood, but from the desperate first hour of suckling infancy onward– without ever feeling intimate love from a woman. You're confident that feminine character means nothing to child, that women have no special gifts to deliver. Motherhood has zero meaning to you, and you'll insist that it have no meaning to anyone else.
You're kind of like Madonna, only harsher.
(You don't really think much of masculinity, either.)
Experiences here with Lena, Justin Case and Gretchen have convinced me this is all about a pretense of sexual sophistication: Nothing means more to the typical GM supporter than the feeling of superiority over those who disagree. No principle of your own (or anyone else's), and no heart of a child, is worth more to you than that.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 2:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647454">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]You don't care who gets hurt in order to make it happen... Including yourself!
Your notion that gay marriage harms anyone is ridiculous. I know married gay people -- my friend Bob Morris and his husband, Ira. They take care of each other, and have been together for years. Here's his piece on their getting married: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/fashion/24love.html
This is harming whom?
Have you met any children of gay parents? I know the research and the researcher -- Judith Stacey. And I know gay parents, and their children. You're speaking abstractly. The children I know of gay parents have turned out amazingly -- children of straight parents would do well to be adopted by these people.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 5:47 AM
Let's see if i have this straight:
Person A defines marriage as limited to 1 Man and 1 Woman.
Person B defines marriage as limited to 1 man and 1 woman or 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman
Person C defines marriage as all of the above and multiple men and multiple women.
But person C is wrong?!?
And how about Person D?
What closed minded bigots we have here. Who are you to decide what marriage is for person C, D, etc?
When Marriage ends up meaning everything, it will mean nothing.
I think that's what Pat was trying to get at.
sean at May 9, 2009 5:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647458">comment from seanMarriage already means nothing to many people in it - I get dozens of letters from people like this every week. I know it means a great deal to Bob and Ira. How does their marriage hurt anybody else?
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 6:46 AM
Clearly the President is out of touch. (Except for the parts where the majority agrees with him.)
My policy goals are more likely to be achieved by legalizing polygamy by making marriage more like any other contract. If nothing else (and don't get me wrong, there would be else) it would help get some of those goofy cults out of the wilderness and back into society, where allegations of child rape will be easier to investigate and prosecute.
You see, legality and morality are not the same. There are often good reasons for not legally prohibiting some things that are morally wrong.
Pseudonym at May 9, 2009 6:49 AM
Marriage already means nothing to many people in it - I get dozens of letters from people like this every week. I know it means a great deal to Bob and Ira. How does their marriage hurt anybody else?
**************************************
So I guess that settles it. Some people are unhappy in their marriages and Bob + Ira aren't hurting anybody so let's just have marriage mean whatever anyone wants.
The polygamists aren't hurting Bob + Ira, nor are Brothers + Sisters who marry or zooists or whatever those freaks that want to marry their dogs call themselves. Forget about thousands of years or recorded human history. WE know better.
I know that sounds like chaos but don't worry. I'll draw the line at Plumbers calling themselves Authors. THAT is unacceptable!!!!
sean at May 9, 2009 7:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647465">comment from seanForget about thousands of years or recorded human history.
Polygamy has existed throughout those years -- and so has slavery. So, should we all have slaves?
Because people with evidence-free belief in god are told that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean you get to deny people rights.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 7:28 AM
Given the behavior of some Catholic priests, I think it's safe to say that Pat Robertson sees bestiality and pedophilia as a participant.
Do note that I didn't say he was a victim. How is this guy different from Pope Give'em-aids II or whoever? I'm glad Pat has so little influence. Spend enough time reading the disconnected religious tripe of your faith while repeating "true, true, true..." and you can't help but go insane. We're lucky English Protestants had so much to do with this country, in that hysteria and lying is all we have to deal with from people who don't understand what the Founders did for them.
Radwaste at May 9, 2009 7:32 AM
"Forget about thousands of years or recorded human history. WE know better."
I'm not sure in what voice this is offered, but a swift look in the Bible - and around the world - says that the one man / one woman model is not only recent, but not even universally practiced. In the Bible the woman was worth nearly nothing.
And that's before you add that the current convention is actually "one woman at a time". Go to court, and you can do a different gal every week.
So much for "thousands of years of recorded human history".
And yes, it took centuries to convince fathers to stick around, and moments to "legitimize" single motherhood through subsidy. But gays didn't do that.
Radwaste at May 9, 2009 7:45 AM
But person C is wrong?!?
And how about Person D?
What closed minded bigots we have here. Who are you to decide what marriage is for person C, D, etc?
When Marriage ends up meaning everything, it will mean nothing.
I think that's what Pat was trying to get at.
- SEAN
You know sean, thats the same thing they said when blacks and whites started marrying
I wonder what your veiw on that would have been had you been born 50 yrs earlier
lujlp at May 9, 2009 8:12 AM
I have noticed that, like feminist arguments, gay "rights" seems to end up depending on not-so-subtle arguments that gays are actually SUPERIOR:
Amy says, "The children I know of gay parents have turned out amazingly -- children of straight parents would do well to be adopted by these people."
So, Amy, gay parents are actually BETTER than straight parents, right? A child actually BENEFITS from the lack of a male or female parent?! (And don't give me that stuff about "role models." You may have nieces and nephews for whom you are a female role model, but that is a far cry from being their mother, isn't it?)
David Ogden Stiers comes out and says he's "proud to be gay." WTF? Should straight folks be "proud" to be a heterosexual? Why should you be "proud" of something that supposedly is inherent, and not a matter of choice, much less achievement? If I am "proud" to be a white man, then I'm sexist and racist, right?
Gay "marriage" adds nothing to society. Lovers' "feelings" are of ZERO import to society. Society recognizes straight marriage in order to try to have children reared in a stable relationship by the two people who created them . Gay relationships simply cannot do this. They are therefore not equal, never will be, and there is no public, societal benefit from honoring them.
Once again (as with the mortgage meltdown), we are willing to sink the ship with all hands aboard, just so long as no one has their feelings hurt in the process.
No threat to straight marriage? Amy, you constantly question the utility of the institution of marriage, and seemingly would be happy to see it gone. You are, however, enthusiastically in favor of gay marriage. I do NOT see your positions as inconsistent in the least.
Finally, Pat Robertson may be an idiot ... but that doesn't mean that he's wrong.
Jay R at May 9, 2009 9:15 AM
"When Marriage ends up meaning everything, it will mean nothing."
It doesn't really matter whether it means everything or nothing in the abstract.
What matters is what it means day-by-day to real human participants. I can't prove it, of course, but I suspect my wife and I would have experienced about the same troubles and satisfactions if we had joined in a civil union, or just shacked up for going on 41 years.
(The only reason we bought the license and said the vows was to minimally satisfy our families. To my mother-in-law's dismay, the only persons present besides us and the minister were two friends as witnesses--no white dress, no veil, no tux, no guest list.)
As things stand now and have always stood, marriage means something different to every person who was ever married, and its meaning changes day by day. There is no point in even worrying about its universal meaning.
Axman at May 9, 2009 9:26 AM
I've read the studies and Amy's right. Children of Gay parents turn out fine. Children of Straight parents turn out fine too. Of course, you're going to have those kids that are just fucked up. You get them no matter who their parents are. Some people, gay or straight, shouldn't be parents. Period.
There is no difference when it comes to parenting skills. You either have it, or you don't. Gay or straight.
If something should happen to DH and I, we're leaving our daughter to my uncle and his partner. Simply because they are the best people for the job of raising her. No other reason.
As for gay marriage- I don't understand the big controversy. How is it anyone else's business if Steve and Gary want to marry? How is it anyone else's business if Josh and Karen want to marry too?
As long as they pay their taxes, I could care less. Two men or two women being married isn't going to make the world stop turning or civilization crumble.
Truth at May 9, 2009 9:35 AM
Just exactly how long have these studies been going on? Are they akin to the ones who find things with single parents hunky-dory, but that poor parents are the problem?
2 women can't give a girl, or boy, the experience of a father. They can't let her know what unconditional supportive male love is, and that's critical to girls growing up to be intelligent self-respecting contributing people. They can't show boys what to do with that apparently very insistent hormonal desire to do every girl they see, like a father who has known that feeling can. They can't show him how to be a man, and that's really, really needed in our current society that is so lacking in them.
2 men can not give a child the experience of a mother. No Aunt, friend of the family, or teacher can supply these missing necessities.
People who can't admit this basic gap have no real strength to the rest of their argument. If it were acknowledged, and discussed, that would be a start. Because marriage doesn't exist just to slap a seal of approval on your personal form of fucking.
AMy, I know some great straight parents. Would all children of gays do well to be adopted by them?
momof3 at May 9, 2009 9:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647483">comment from Jay R"The children I know of gay parents have turned out amazingly -- children of straight parents would do well to be adopted by these people." So, Amy, gay parents are actually BETTER than straight parents, right?
People vary, but one thing gay parents have in common is difficulty in having children. They aren't going to have children by accident, and it takes a lot to adopt or whatever to get or make those children. What you have to work very hard for takes a different decision making process -- if there's any at all in having sex and recklessly going without birth control, which is how many children of straight parents are conceived.
I am against marriage privileging, but since straight couples are allowed to marry, gay couples should have the same right.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 9:50 AM
"Because people with evidence-free belief in god are told that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean you get to deny people rights."
Amy, my arguments against gay "marriage" have nothing to do with religion. Yet you paint all opponents as religious "nutters." This is pure bigotry on your part, right?
As for denying people "rights," what a farce. So many gay women crying that they are denied equal rights to marry have already married men and had children. So, have the courage to get your language clear and call a spade a spade: gay marriage involves special PRIVILEGE for gays. Whether you believe this privilege is justified is besides the point.
It is the same with abortion: even if you believe in abortion rights, you are a gutless coward to refer to the soon-to-be-dead thing as "tissue" rather than as an "unborn baby." If you have to pervert the language to make yourself feel better about something you believe in, your beliefs are pretty shaky.
Jay R at May 9, 2009 9:56 AM
"a swift look in the Bible - and around the world - says that the one man/one woman model is not only recent, but not even universally practiced. In the Bible, the woman was worth almost nothing"
Maybe you should look through your Bible a bit less swiftly, Rad:
Proverbs 31:10 "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels"
Ephesians, Chapter 5:25, 28, 31, 33
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife, loves himself"
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"
"Each one of you must also love his wife as he loves himself"
etc.
It's easy to find mind-blowing ugliness towards women in the Bible, and it's even easier to forget that the holy books of other civilizations are full of much worse ugliness, with nothing like the verses quoted above. One man/one (valued) woman has in fact been the standard in Western civilization ever since the Dark Ages.
You're right about about the lack of universality, and that's exactly the point. Do you think it's a coincidence that the # 1 civilization, the one that made the modern world, is the one that has been following the one man/one woman standard for nearly 2000 years, and the one that has historically placed the highest value on women in marriage?
Martin at May 9, 2009 10:05 AM
"They can't show boys what to do with that apparently very insistent hormonal desire to do every girl they see, like a father who has known that feeling can."
Tell me how a father would better explain or, as you put it, "show" a son what to do about this. Most of the time, parents verbally explain what these changes in their body are. Can a man explain what a period is as well as a mother can, and if not, what kind of special knowledge can the mother convey on the subject? Much of what kids learn is going to be through experience. You don't need someone to show or explain better.
"They can't show him how to be a man"
So what traits or behaviors are boys raised in lesbian families missing, exactly? How are they not as "manly"?
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 10:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647491">comment from LaDeeDaTwo boys I know who are and were raised by a lesbian Republican are as decent, well-mannered, well-adjusted, smart and thinking as they are girl crazy. Their mom raised them with strong values -- she's an amazing person and unless her sons were dropped here by aliens, was a terrific mother.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 10:51 AM
> Your notion that gay marriage
> harms anyone is ridiculous.
Aw Amy, you chickened out!
> I know married gay people --
Yes, yes, you have friends in the Times, you're very cosmopolitan.
> This is harming whom?
GM further normalizes settings which diminish nourishment of our most vulnerable members, our children.
> I know the research and
> the researcher --
> Judith Stacey.
Right. This is all about you and your darling coterie of sophisticates.
> You're speaking abstractly.
And you're speaking anecdotally. (Accusation of 'abstraction' from a woman who needs "studies" and academic cites to describe family composition is just bizzarre.)
> children of straight parents
> would do well to be adopted
> by these people.
There it is! The sickest of the sickly liberal impulses: We'll assign children to be loved as we want them to and to be needful as we see fit.
Again, Amy, I want you to say it out loud in a simple sentence: There's nothing special or essential about the love a mother brings to her children.
I don't know why you're being a wimp about this... You've already said the converse for fatherhood. So maybe you just don't believe it. And there's a reason for that.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 11:50 AM
> How does their marriage hurt
> anybody else?
If they don't accrue resources collected (by force) from the rest of society, why do they want it?
> Because people with evidence-
> free belief in god are told
> that homosexuality is wrong
More of that hammers-and-nails thing (see the comment to Jay in the lending post): All you really wanna do is look down on people who you disagree with.
> doesn't mean you get to
> deny people rights.
Nobody's being denied rights. Gays have never had the right to marry each other in a broad way. You "don't get" to assign people rights, either.
> one thing gay parents have in
> common is difficulty in
> having children.
That's not sensibly ironic, or intellectually understated, or rhetorically illustrative. It's inexcusably cynical.
> They aren't going to have
> children by accident
Do you seriously believe the most of the underloved children of straights are, in any meaningful proportion, "accidents"?
> I am against marriage
> privileging
Great! Stop right there! You're principled or you're not...
> but since straight couples are
> allowed to marry, gay couples
> should have the same right.
...Turns out you're not.
-------
Loojy, you still out there? Read this and thank me for the link:
"With a human generation of about twenty-five years, there have been roughly only one hundred generations since the founding of the Roman Republic. Yet the changes in the human environment caused by changes in human activity have been enormous. Changes in diet, habitation, working conditions, the pollution of air and water, and especially the considerable increase of lifespan that result in major alterations and breakdowns in the bodily machinery have all been too rapid for genetic adaptation.
"Indeed for environmental changes that have their effect after the age of reproduction, it is not clear that natural selection can operate at all. The constant exposure to high doses of solar radiation that is experienced by surfers on the California beaches might induce an eventually fatal skin cancer, but the cancer death almost always occurs well after reproductive age, so there is no opportunity for selection to act. The general result is that parts of the human genome are out of correspondence with the conditions of modern life."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 12:19 PM
Busy, cookin strogonaff, just checked back, I'll look at the link in a moment
But on the whole I would say that since gays cant get pregnant accidentally only the one who want to be parents will be, and as they have to adopt only the ones finacially secure enough will be allowed to adopt
lujlp at May 9, 2009 1:06 PM
Lots of very planned for children are abused and misused. Lots of accidents are very very loved. That's not really the good parenting dividing line. So claiming that gays are good parents because they have to plan, well, that's not logic-backed.
Current pregnancy was a calculated risk. I adore the baby already (alhough I wish he'd hurry up an COME already!) And I sure wasn't planning for twins the first go round, but I love them.
Many fertility parents I know dump the kids in daycare 9+ hours a day, because they are so career oriented. How is that good parenting? It was sure planned.
momof3 at May 9, 2009 1:37 PM
"gay marriage involves special PRIVILEGE for gays."
How so?
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 1:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647510">comment from LaDeeDa"gay marriage involves special PRIVILEGE for gays." How so?
It would include them in the "special PRIVILEGE" already given to straight people.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 1:42 PM
Nope— They already have identical privileges.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 2:32 PM
"Nope— They already have identical privileges."
No, they don't. One group can marry the person of their choice, while the other group can't. People shouldn't be forced to "choose" to marry someone of the opposite sex when they're not attracted to them.
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 3:15 PM
"Pat Robertson suggests the ultimate conclusion of legal same-sex marriage is legal polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, pedophilia"
Pat Robertson is wrong, because he skipped a step. The immediate conclusion of gay marriage is legal incest (opposite sex and same-sex) marriages. What's to deny them? I see nothing to prevent them since they are already practiced. Then it goes to the lowering of the age of consent laws. Child marriages between teens and adults could occur.
Legal polygamy is still a long shot, but be so surprised if pubic opinion changes.
anon43432 at May 9, 2009 3:26 PM
> One group can marry the
> person of their choice
Frogwash. If a heterosexual male like me can marry the person of my choice, why who Jessy even return my calls?
You're making a sloppy argument because you're applying sloppy thinking. You ought to put precisely what you believe about this into a carefully crafted sentence, and we'll take it from there.
---
Nonny, not only do I hate your inane signature, but your thoughts are completely impenetrable:
> The immediate conclusion of gay
> marriage is legal incest
Is it just me? Can somebuddy 'splain what he's getting at?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 3:47 PM
Whoops! "won't", not who.
I feel bad for harshing Nonny now.
(Not really!)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 3:49 PM
"Is it just me? Can somebuddy 'splain what he's getting at?"
Try reading the sentence above the quoted sentence. Then figure it out.
Its funny how when I argue with liberals, or people that are anti-conservative, the discussion is about semantics. Evidently, you don't get the argument because you have trouble reading a sentence.
You're an idiot for not knowing what I'm talking about.
anon43432 at May 9, 2009 4:10 PM
"If a heterosexual male like me can marry the person of my choice, why won't Jessy even return my calls?"
The difference between Jessica Alba being unattracted to you and gays being attracted to each other is that you're still free to marry her if she so chooses, and gays aren't. They can't help their attraction any more than you can. People should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as the other person consents.
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 4:17 PM
>People should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as the other person consents.
So, ol' Pat is right, after all?
Jay R at May 9, 2009 4:57 PM
"'People should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as the other person consents.'
So, ol' Pat is right, after all?"
The other person must have the capacity to consent, which children and animals don't.
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 5:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647548">comment from anon43432Its funny how when I argue with liberals, or people that are anti-conservative,
It's funny how people feel so much better when they label people. People on this site, and Crid, in particular, are not so easily categorizable.
I, for example, am fiscally conservative (saw George Bush for the profligate spend-spend-spend big government fiscal liberal he was, and I'm much more disturbed about the current denizen of the WH in that regard), but I'm socially libertarian (though not for open borders, per Milton Friedman's observation that they don't work with a welfare state). I also refer to myself as a "personal responsibilitarian." I'm not a feminist, and I see a great deal of discrimination against men in our society that I'd like to see rectified.
If there's a party that stands for what I stand for somewhat, it's the Libertarian party, but they run losers and whack jobs every time.
But the bottom line, I'm hard to pigeon-hole, huh? Makes it kind of hard to dismiss me with that "you're just a liberal!" accusation. (Sadly, the term "classical liberal" is about as well-known by the general populace as Hayek is.)
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2009 5:46 PM
So, LaDeeda, Jessica Alba is "still" free to choose to marry Crid even if she's not attracted to him, but gays can't marry the opposite gender because they aren't attracted to them? Couldn't they as easily choose to marry sans attraction, just like Jessica can choose that? Your argument makes no sense to me.
I think ANON's point was relatives marrying will come first before groups, since it's still between one person and one other person. Groups will take longer because they're groups, but make no mistake-we change marriage for gays, poly's will demand it too eventually. After all, who are we to deny their "right" to fuck who they want and make society acknowledge it?
momof3 at May 9, 2009 6:40 PM
Amy: I was arguing with Crid. And as far as pigeonholing, I am correct to call him out as a liberal OR anti-conservative. I am sure there is blurring around the edges, but I have blurred it with the "or".
Crid's retort is stupid, BTW, and consistent with my online experiences with liberals and anti-conservatives.
Finally, I didn't pigeonhole you because I do respect your opinion on some issues like the men's issues, but not religion.
anon43432 at May 9, 2009 7:21 PM
"Jessica Alba is 'still' free to choose to marry Crid even if she's not attracted to him"
Attraction is not necessary for marriage, although I did mean that they could marry if she ever becomes attracted to him.
"but gays can't marry the opposite gender because they aren't attracted to them?"
Gays ARE allowed to marry the opposite gender, as they should be, but they should be allowed to marry someone of the same gender as well.
"Couldn't they as easily choose to marry sans attraction, just like Jessica can choose that?"
Well, to be perfectly fair, everyone should have the freedom to be married to people they're not attracted to, which includes heterosexuals to members of the same sex by allowing gay marriage.
LaDeeDa at May 9, 2009 7:52 PM
> Try reading the sentence
> above the quoted sentence.
> Then figure it out.
Done. Didn't help. You're not making a lick of sense.
Ah! You meant consequence instead of "conclusion".
> you're still free to marry
> her if she so chooses
Right. But that's not what you said, is it? What you said was:
> One group can marry the
> person of their choice
Which is obviously not so. And get this: I think you said exactly what you meant... At least to the extent that you've thought about it at all, which is probably not very much. Why should we doubt it? You're a very articulate person, LaDeeDa!
But I think you're just daydreaming your way through the issue. You think of gay marriage in terms of chirpy wedding ceremonies. You appreciation of marriage has probably be scorched by divorce, as that of most people has. You want to pretend to be a forward thinker in terms of civil rights. And no matter how desperate public finances become in this country, you imagine that some imaginary white guy will open his wallet to cover what ever practical costs come from this. (This put you well in tune with our new President, who by my rough calculation, has pissed away about four trillion dollars of ours without any idea of where it could come from.) And you're certainly don't care if society gets anything in return for this dispensation, do you?
> they should be allowed to
> marry someone of the same
> gender as well.
Why? What's in it for the rest of us, who will be expected to make special allowances for such couples? Answer specifically, LaDeeDa. (As a daydreaming cynic, you'll be tempted to say we should reduce gay life to the sewer bitterness found in incompetent straight unions: I want you to resist this temptation.)
——
PS- Will someone review the messages to check whether Amy has affirmed that There's nothing special or essential about the love a mother brings to her children?
Mmm? No? Oversight, I'm sure... She'll get to it next week. (She's usually very tidy.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 9, 2009 8:51 PM
"'you're still free to marry her if she so chooses'
Right. But that's not what you said, is it? What you said was:
'One group can marry the person of their choice'
Which is obviously not so. And get this: I think you said exactly what you meant... "
Your argument was that, according to my wording, why shouldn't Jessica Alba marry you just because you chose her? Well, I don't support forced marriage; if you can convince her to marry you, then I wouldn't care.
"And no matter how desperate public finances become in this country, you imagine that some imaginary white guy will open his wallet to cover what ever practical costs come from this."
Well, what costs would there be?
"'they should be allowed to marry someone of the same gender as well.'
Why? What's in it for the rest of us, who will be expected to make special allowances for such couples?"
You can't claim, on the one hand, that gays can choose someone of the opposite sex to marry, that these restrictions apply equally to everyone, and therefore gays have the same rights as everyone else, and then claim on the other hand that legalizing gay marriage will equate to “extra” rights for gays because gay marriage will only apply to them. If gay marriage is legalized, then EVERYONE will have more freedom, because heterosexuals will be allowed marry those of the same sex.
LaDeeDa at May 10, 2009 5:10 AM
To be more clear, your analogy isn't exact because you can marry Jessica Alba...if she wants to. There's no ban on the Jessica Albas of the world marrying the Crids of the world. Just because you probably won't convince her to do so doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Also, the idea that because gays are already equal, and therefore if they can get married it will be an extra right for them, and therefore heterosexuals will need to be given something in return if it is to be legalized is based on the first premise, which you have not proven to me yet.
To clarify, when I said "everyone will have more freedom," I also meant that everyone will have more rights, and that gay marriage won't just apply to gay people.
LaDeeDa at May 10, 2009 11:17 AM
> Well, I don't support
> forced marriage
I didn't say you supported forced marriage. You think romantic fulfillment is available to any (straight) person who asks for it. Even if that's not what you think, there's a reason that it's what you said. And that reason is that the part of your brain that offered the judgment is the part where Disney cartoon movies do their work. It's ain't your best.
> if you can convince her
> to marry you, then I
> wouldn't care.
Aha! It turns out your beliefs aren't quite as childlike as you were pretending. So if I "convince" my little sister to marry me, you "wouldn't care" about that, either. Right? You think there's nothing special about typical marriages... We can do what we want.
But as it happens, the world is full of people I can't marry. This includes little girls, blood relatives, the already-married and the insane, as well as men and the women who won't have me. Your argument presumes that marriage is a wide-open opportunity anyway, but it's not. It was designed to certify a very particular kind of pair.
You want to make the biggest possible change to that specification: Square tires. If you really believe in what you're doing, you're a coward for pretending the specification has no value anyway.
> Well, what costs would
> there be?
I'm ready to discuss them when you are, but are you acknowledging that you hadn't given it any thought? That you thought of marriage as a meaningless freebie?
> and then claim on the other
> hand that legalizing gay
> marriage will equate to
> “extra” rights for gays
GM supporters are demanding a variance to one of civilization's ancient, indisputably- (if imperfectly) successful, multi-millennium-tested strictures on the basis of an interior emotional condition... A condition of consequence, essentially, only to grownups.
> gay marriage will only
> apply to them.
Nope, not at all. Gays aren't petitioning for "gay unions", they're demanding "marriage." They're not going to accept any difference between gay and straight marriages.
and then claim on the other hand that legalizing gay marriage will equate to “extra” rights for gays
> If gay marriage is legalized,
> then EVERYONE will have
> more freedom
What makes you think freedom is our goal? Yes! Exactly! If the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is closed, then EVERYONE will have more freedom to drive! If we open all the prisons, EVERYONE will be able to enjoy a Sunday picnic! If we print enough money, EVERYONE will be free enough to buy a Ferrari!
> which you have not
> proven to me yet.
You're the one asking for the change: You the one who needs to prove things to people.
> I also meant that everyone
> will have more rights
Passing out rights like candy is not what makes civilization go.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 10, 2009 2:47 PM
Sorry, edit oversight. Lazy afternoon here...
That was such a good little fistfight, too.
Amy hasn't answered the challenge yet!
HEY AMY! Choose one!...
[X] Like this.
[ ] Not this.
OK? Go!
——————————
[ ] There's nothing special or essential about the love a mother brings to her children.
[ ] Whatever.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 10, 2009 3:02 PM
Of course gays shouldn't be able to marry. If that is made legal, then children will grow up in homes that lack a devoted mother and father. Or they might grow up thinking that being gay is OK. Oh noes! Because these things certainly never happen now. Letting a small fraction of society marry who can't marry now will certainly mark the end of healthy families all over. Soon goats will be trying to figure out who pays for the reception! The familypocalypse is nigh!
Get a grip people. Gay marriage affects gay people and their relationships. It doesn't hurt straight people or theirs. If someone has data to demonstrate how it hurts society, please share it. Otherwise, you're just dealing in speculative ills. While there are clear harms done to gays by not allowing their relationships legal recognition.
Cheezburg at May 10, 2009 4:22 PM
“You think romantic fulfillment is available to any (straight) person who asks for it.”
No, you can be miserable and married. I think that “romantic fulfillment” is available to people who are in good relationships. It's just that the government shouldn't legally recognize one kind of relationship over another.
“You think there's nothing special about typical marriages”
Correct.
“I'm ready to discuss them when you are, but are you acknowledging that you hadn't given it any thought?”
Well, yes. What would the monetary costs be?
“'and then claim on the other hand that legalizing gay marriage will equate to “extra” rights for gays'
GM supporters are demanding a variance to one of civilization's ancient, indisputably- (if imperfectly) successful, multi-millennium-tested strictures on the basis of an interior emotional condition... A condition of consequence, essentially, only to grownups.”
Well, religion was a pretty well-established stricture, around for millennia, serving its purpose, but the founding fathers decided to change the precedent of government mandating a religion. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that it was a good tradition, or that it shouldn't be changed.
“'which you have not proven to me yet.'
You're the one asking for the change: You the one who needs to prove things to people.”
No, you made the claim that heterosexuals need to be given something in return because gay marriage would amount to an extra right for them, because they're already equal. You need to explain better why they're already equal. If it's because heterosexual marriage is available to everyone, and homosexual marriage would only be available to gays (i.e. the “exception” would only be made for them), I've already explained why that's crap.
“If we open all the prisons, EVERYONE will be able to enjoy a Sunday picnic!”
The examples you cited involve great social costs. Explain the social costs legalizing gay marriage will have.
“'gay marriage will only apply to them.'
Nope, not at all. Gays aren't petitioning for "gay unions", they're demanding "marriage." They're not going to accept any difference between gay and straight marriages.”
Hold on. Isn't the argument that gays will have extra rights if gay marriage is legalized that heterosexual marriage is for everyone, but gay marriage isn't? That gay marriage requires an exception solely for them, that gay marriage will “only apply to them?” What, are you now saying it won't?
Also, are you saying that accepting any difference would still constitute equality? Why should they accept any government restrictions on marriage? What differences should be acceptable?
“What makes you think freedom is our goal?”
Well, freedom and equality are the goals of the gay marriage movement. They tend to go hand in hand. By not allowing gay marriage, no one is as free, because nobody is allowed to marry those of the same sex. And because the restrictions have more profound effects on one group, the groups are not equal. These problems are rectified by legalizing gay marriage.
“If you really believe in what you're doing, you're a coward for pretending the specification has no value anyway.”
I think you're a coward for not taking a positive position on this. And when I say positive, I mean explaining yourself. You're being vague, getting hung up on semantics, relying on tradition to do your thinking for you, not explicitly pointing out the costs, both monetary and social, of legalizing gay marriage, and you know why? Because you can't prove your point. You can't win. You keep things in the abstract, like “Do you dare claim that there's nothing special or essential about the love a mother brings to her children?”, as though that's some morally indefensible position, because anything can be right in the abstract. Now, explain. What is special or essential about a mother's love?
LaDeeDa at May 10, 2009 4:36 PM
Guys, it's OK if you wanna blow snot... That's why we're here, for gosh sakes! But please do the reading:
> they might grow up thinking that
> being gay is OK. Oh noes!
Teenage sarcasm nourishes my suspicion that most support for GM is based on a need to pose as a sexual sophisticate (as noted above).
The posture doesn't convince.
> If someone has data to
> demonstrate...
Again, as noted above, the comment on 5/5/09 at 5:55pm describes the bankruptcy of these challenges. You're presumably a man aged 20 + years, raised in a somewhat typical family, and allowed to see the families of friends with some intimacy as their work is done, and the consequences of families that fail... Yet you need "data" about what mothers and fathers mean to children.
That cracks my shit up!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 3:07 AM
> the government shouldn't legally
> recognize one kind of
> relationship over another.
So again, you're cool with me & my little sister, or a mother and her son, or....
> “You think there's nothing special
> about typical marriages”
>
> Correct.
There's not much to admire about your entrenched cynicism. I admire successful, civilizing marriages whether the people within them have the horse sense to recognize the blessings or not. Good marriage keeps ugly things out of my way, and out of theirs.
> Well, yes.
See, that's why I think your judgment is too green to trust. You're moving on impulse.
> What would the monetary
> costs be?
Certifications, adjudications, all the rest of the silliness. (Gays too will be weeping at disinterested judges in our courtrooms about how this or that person done them wrong, garnishing each others' wages with support from the sheriff, etc. Do you want communities burdened with that?) The practicalities are implicit in the enthusiasm for the change: If gays were only concerned about respect from straights, there'd be less urgency in the movement.
> Just because something is a
> tradition doesn't mean that
> it was a good tradition,
> or that it shouldn't
> be changed.
This is as close as you've come to acknowledging the magnitude of the change you're demanding. Like everyone else in the popular argument, you're first move was to lowball.
> you made the claim that
> heterosexuals need to be
> given something in return
No. I said SOCIETY needs to get something in return: Everyone who'll be party to the contract needs to get something in return, and marriage is a contract with a community. For a change of this magnitude, I want something that's good for all individuals. Straight marriage, properly undertaken and responsibly executed, improves life for everyone, whether they themselves are married or not. Why should I care whether gays marry?
> Explain the social costs
> legalizing gay marriage
> will have.
I've mentioned a few. (Here's another, reworded from earlier days: Gay marriage infers that the psychological fulfillment of having one's emotions certified as righteous by The Man [or by The Larger Community] is what marriage is for. But I don't think it is. Government isn't there to pat us on the head and tell us we're lovable.)
But since you're the petitioner challenging the status quo, you're the one who bears the burden of persuasion. Asking "Why not?" doesn't count.
> That gay marriage requires an
> exception solely for them,
> that gay marriage will “only
> apply to them?” What, are
> you now saying it won't?
No one as confused by wording as you are should accuse others of "getting hung up on semantics." My point is that if gays wanted state certification of some other kind of union, maybe even precisely the same thing under another name, it might be more readily forthcoming. The demand that it be called "marriage" is a sticking point.
I think marriage (the real kind; between unrelated, unmarried, sane, age-appropriate opposite-sex couples) is deservedly special, because those unions can do special things for the world. They deserve extra juice.
> I think you're a coward for
> not taking a positive
> position on this.
But I have! I'm positively certain it's a bad idea.
> I mean explaining yourself.
You're considering it for the first time. We've covered this in here before, starting roughly here.
You should read some of that before another round, but let me offer the usual groundwork by saying that I don't care what kind of fucking you like, or what kind of consenting adult you like to do it with. I don't care who gets to visit you in the hospital, or how you've got your inheritance mapped out.
> freedom and equality are the
> goals of the gay marriage
> movement.
I don't believe that for a moment. Gay marriage is the goal of the gay marriage movement, and I'm against it. And nihilistic, blind simplicity is not the same thing as "equality". Not all unions are 'equally' important, and there's no reason for us to pretend they are... Except that lots of blog commenters want to appear open-minded.
> You keep things in the abstract,
> like “Do you dare claim...
First of all, using quotation marks when you're not actually and accurately quoting someone is dishonest.
Secondly, you can ground my "abstraction" into a real-world data point by just saying it yourself, as a declarative statement without stipulation or reservation: You, Ladeeda, don't believe there's anything special or essential about the love a mother brings to her childen. Go ahead... Type it... (whispering now... c'mon... say motherhood isn't important....)
I don't think you'll do it. Y'see, Amy won't do it because she knows she's in a corner, and that if she says something so obviously wrong to most of the women who read advice columns, it'd be bad for business.
What's your excuse? You're so very, very close:
> Now, explain. What is special
> or essential about a
> mother's love?
I think you kinda wanna be told, which is both fun and pathetic.
(If you can, ask your grandmother. It'll be an important if belated observance of the holiday.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 3:31 AM
Crid, I think you are just playing devils advocate here, because otherwise you'd argue for disovling marriges between hetero who dont have kids, and denying divorce to couples with kids as a divorce winds up in the loss of one parents influence, and for the destruction of sperm donor clinics
lujlp at May 11, 2009 4:41 AM
> because otherwise you'd argue for...
You extrapolate too much.
Loojy, I think that because you have so much fun ridiculing religious people here, you secretly want to take the little Lutheran children out of their Sunday school classes and put shoots under their nails and drop flaming coals into their shorts and poke sticks into their ears while you burn them at the stake on street corners. On Sunday afternoons!
Don't you? WELL, DON'T YOU???!?!?!
May as well admit it, Loojy. You say bad things about religious people all the time. So, I mean, that's where your rhetoric leads....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 5:06 AM
I say religious people are stupid
You say the prospective children of gay parents will suffer due to a lack of a parent of one sex or another,
So why dont you feel the same way about prospective, and acctual children of straight parents then?
lujlp at May 11, 2009 6:23 AM
@Crid:
I use sarcasm because I think that in people, men especially, above the age of forty, the "ick" factor with respect to homosexuals is a big reason why they oppose gay marriage. The smart ones come up with other explanations because it's no longer socially acceptable to say out loud that one finds . "It's for the children" strikes me as a perfect example of this.
Your claim that gay marriage hurts children seems to rely on this assumption: Gay marriage means that gay couples will raise children at a higher rate than they do presently, thereby depriving these children of the ineffable benefits of being raised by both a mother and a father. But is there a good reason to believe that? I don't know, and I don't think you know either. So the harm you talk about is purely speculative (hence why I want data).*
Meanwhile, the problems caused by the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships are real. Medical decision-making, shared social security benefits, joint ownership of property, etc. are available to hetero couples with a single ceremony; for gay couples, many of these things are simply unavailable, regardless of the length of the relationship. Some things can be done via legal agreements (for example, a living will), but each one is a separate and potentially expensive legal process.
When I weigh a speculative harm against a definite harm, the definite harm wins.
* I also believe that more important than gender in raising a child is that parents be there for the kid, regardless of gender. I don't see how gay marriage hurts that, either.
Cheezburg at May 11, 2009 7:15 AM
Crid: Lets look at your argument and a legit one at that. The benifits of the influence of both genders on rearing a child. Just about the only worth a shit argument I have heard against gay marriage. The only one that does not if boiled down to it's essence become "Gays are icky", every other one does.
What is it the a child gets from a mother or a father? Are these traits only present in a specific gender? Can we make specific definitions for these and how do hetero outliers blend with the now defined gender roles, like stay at home dads? Stay at home dads are the ultimate in hetero counter culture.
Can the some what strange dynamic of a gay couple not provide these traits in gender neutrality? Most successful gay pairings (or strait ones) tend to have a top and bottom, masculine/feminine or ying/yang. So if we (GM supporters) can show these traits in GM would this sway your view?
vlad at May 11, 2009 8:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647809">comment from vladSorry - a little overwhelmed, and the why gay parents are okay argument is in Sarah Hrdy's work. Children need intact families. Glenn Sacks was a stay-at-home dad from when his daughter was six months to three years old and his son was a little older. I've talked to him about this. He saw it as an absolute luxury and privilege to stay home with his children, and it sounds like he cherished every minute of it. How it can matter that he has a penis...I really don't understand. The thing is, intact families, two parents -- or even more parents in a collective -- not day care. That's what seems to matter. Children were raised in group situations for much of human history. Not by single mothers or single fathers, divorced and living alone.
Amy Alkon at May 11, 2009 8:51 AM
BTW in the some states 2nd cousins are allowed to marry. Gross by most standards but not genetically dangerous.
vlad at May 11, 2009 9:05 AM
"Straight marriage, properly undertaken and responsibly executed, improves life for everyone, whether they themselves are married or not."
How so? And how does gay marriage not improve life for all of the community? And how can the government ensure that straight marriages succeed, if that's what benefits society the most?
"My point is that if gays wanted state certification of some other kind of union, maybe even precisely the same thing under another name, it might be more readily forthcoming."
So why is marriage so special that straights get it and gays don't, if you don't mind giving them the exact same thing under a different name?
“Not all unions are 'equally' important, and there's no reason for us to pretend they are”
So gay "unions" (whatever you mean by that) are less important, and therefore, denying them the ability to get married still constitutes equality for them.
Regarding mothers, I think that biological mothers love their children very deeply and have a very close bond to their children. I also think that children can be bonded to and be raised just as successfully by adoptive parents, grandparents, or some other surrogates. The reason I don't accept your whole “a mother's love is special” argument is because it somehow suggests that motherly love is beyond observation or empirical data.
LaDeeDa at May 11, 2009 10:55 AM
P.S. When I say "And how does gay marriage not improve life for all of the community?", I'm asking for the benefits of straight marriage that gay marriage doesn't provide.
LaDeeDa at May 11, 2009 10:57 AM
You know, given that the majority of abuse and death of infants, children and young teenagers happens at the hand of mothers - I have to say that not all mothers are really that special
lujlp at May 11, 2009 11:34 AM
> why dont you feel the same way
> about prospective, and acctual
> children of straight parents
Who says I don't?
Loojy... Please... You gotta argue with the things people say, rather than argue with things you dream of them saying. You're always telling those you disagree with what their next fifty words are going to be. It's completely unnecessary!
I've said plenty. Several of Amy's housewife-y readers have taken offense from my comments about the repugnance of single motherhood and the willingness of poorly-socialized bimbos to whip their knees apart for for dim-bulb guys, only to instantly divorce them and raise their embittered brat-bots in a household of egomaniacal poverty. Nor have I been patient with the microdick'd mens-rights types who show up here every few weeks complaining that the idiocy of their bimbos just could not have been foreseen... She was such a nice girl... and then, out of the blue.... Well, we've got a statistical barrage of incompetent pairings stretching across generations. No one can pretend to be surprised.
> I think that in people, men
> especially, above the age of
> forty, the "ick" factor with
> respect to homosexuals is a big
> reason why they oppose gay
> marriage.
I know... I *know* you think that. You think that so much, you think it even when you don't think it... When you have no reason to think about that at all, it's still what you think about, how today's rockin' kids are so much more sophisti-micated about things than people were just, um, y'know, twenty minutes ago... (Like some blast of Klingon/Vulcan wisdom was beamed down to our species overnight, enhancing our nature.) When other issues are stacked high on the table, you still wanna talk about sexual naivete on the part of some other person. You never want to talk about public finances, you never want to talk about social contracts, and you certainly never wanna talk about kids. Amy Alkon pretends to be libertarian about it, but she readily throws those principles overboard for the chance to ridicule "the 'ick' factor".
It's as if, by recalling the bitter taunts about 'maturity' from a 7th grader who's just had her training bra snapped by a goofy skaterboy, you aspire to a Rosa Parks-style righteousness. But instead of courageously risking jail, beatings, and worse, you get to flatter yourself as (inexplicably) refined, and look down on others. Win-win! The "'ick' factor" is all you got.
It's the reason you're in the game.
> is there a good reason to
> believe that?
Let me turn it around: If gays didn't believe they were going to do more child raising as a consequence of this, do you think they'd be satisfied?
> Medical decision-making, shared
> social security benefits, joint
> ownership of property, etc.
I love the "etc." I translate it as I haven't actually looked it up or ever seen it fer m'self, but am reasonably confident someone will make this fight for me...
> for gay couples, many of these
> things are simply unavailable
I strongly doubt it. There are probably three Appalachian county hospitals down in the holler where policies about visitation are primitive, but most of the anecdotes I hear are deeply suspect. And again, I don't see why we should want to give gays social security benefits, that's begging the question. As far as property transfer goes, any responsible, earnestly-prepared adult has gone to an attorney to put those things in motion anyway. The difference between such a prepared couple of any gender & marital status and a pair of married straights is probably very slight. It's not what this is about (as you infer in the same sentence):
> regardless of the length of the
> relationship.
Who said anything about that? Who cares how long these things go? Again again again... Why are you asking me, or the government I pay for, to care so much about your "relationships"? Why the fuck should I?
> if we (GM supporters) can show
> these traits in GM would this
> sway your view?
Not sure I understand what you're offering. The natural world doesn't deliver babies to a girly partner with a butch one; it makes babies with a mother and a father. At this hour, there have been no exceptions.
(And should something interesting come out of the science lab this summer, it won't demonstrate new excellence in our childrearing any more than nuclear detonations flatter our courage.)
Part of the magic of this ancient institution is that it plays the ball where it lies: The standard is unrelated, unmarried, sane, age-appropriate, opposite-sex couples.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 9:06 PM
> the why gay parents are
> okay argument is
Is "okay" what we're striving for?
> in Sarah Hrdy's work.
Have I already noted, twice in this thread and countless times throughout the years, that the deeply contextual reliance on "studies" for this argument is sort of chickenshit? Yes? Yes, I have noted that? Very good then.
> Children need intact families.
Right. We're discussing the components of a "family". (Horny American adults hate these discussions, because they know certain options are likely to be foreclosed to them once we're done.)
> The thing is, intact families,
> two parents -- or even more
> parents in a collective -- not
> day care.
You're making up the specification to fit adult comfort. There's no reason to allow you to get away with that. Nor...
> Not by single mothers or single
> fathers, divorced and living
> alone.
Nor should I allow you to imply that I was arguing for single parenthood. If I live to be ten thousand, I will never, ever argue for that.
> How so?
Seriously? You need to be told why mothers are good for children, and why families based on marriage are good for civilization?
Y'know, I mean... Sure, I could tell you, but just now I'm awash in pathos. What's it like to be so far removed from the human experience that you don't see these things?
> And how does gay marriage not
> improve life for all of the
> community?
I can't see what it does for, say, me. Or for a loving family in the suburbs. Why should they be taxed so that gays can pretend to be straight?
> And how can the government
> ensure that straight marriages
> succeed
That's not exactly the task for government. You have a very, very large number of presumptions. If nothing else comes from this, I like to strike just one of them: Government is not your daddy. It's not there to make you behave nice or make you feel loved. I think the whole culture should do more to encourage responsible pairing, especially on behalf of children. But this isn't the kind of project where the Senate passes a bill and then we move on to nuclear waste.
> if you don't mind giving them
> the exact same thing under a
> different name?
Well, actually, I do mind. But the point would be that proper heterosexual unions should still enjoy extra benefits because they do more for the rest of us. A fancy name is part of it.
> denying them the ability to get
> married still constitutes
> equality for them.
Sloppy language. You, like all gm advocates, are trying to change the definition of marriage on the sly. It's dishonest and it's cowardly. They are perfectly able to marry as anyone else is at present. It couldn't be more equal.
You want marriage to mean something else, something about Disney hearts and approving seniors. But you'll never confess that you're changing the meaning of marriage, because everyone with a lick of sense will stop you to ask why.
> beyond observation or empirical
> data.
We've covered this. It's nutty. You need "empirical data" on the love of mothers.... Riiiiiiggghhhhtt.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 9:10 PM
I spent the weekend watching the Formula One race from Spain through the internet! It was great!
OK, actually, it was pretty shitty. But the great thing about sports is, they keep score. And in that frame of mind, I wanna tally up where we are today.
What game are we playing? Well, my first rule is this: "Children deserve a loving mother and a loving father."
Cynical assholes will often reply –through an alcoholic belch– that "Well, sometimes the little bastards don't get what they deserve, do they?"
Assholes like that are easy enough to ignore. The problems in their own hearts, or the frost from their own broken families and incompentent loving, lie outside the scope of our interest today. We're here to talk about policy, not therapy.
We need to resist policies that would knowingly deprive children of blessings of their birthright.... Any birthright, whoever they are. I think every child deserves a loving mother and a loving father. Each parent has particular (if invisible) gifts to bring to a child. And if the kid doesn't get them, and both parents are alive in the moment of birth, then society hasn't done its duty to protect the child's interests. Any rational person who's had at least a not-horrible mother will see why this is true. (Unless they're so bitter that they're cynical.)
Now, I can talk about the distinctive importance of fatherhood for hours on end. But Amy took the sport out of that a few weeks ago, when he said in as many words:
> Children need daddies.
She's right. And so we're halfway home here, aren't we? I mean, presumably Amy's not a monster... She wouldn't knowingly sign off on a policy that deprives children of something they need just so adults can feel a little more comfortable. I mean, once you're grown up, you ought to be used to the idea that some personal fulfillment costs are too high for others to bear. Correct? Correct.
So anyway, on a whim, I knocked out this affirmation, the contradiction to my own beliefs, and asked everyone to sign off on it:
There's nothing special or essential about the love a mother brings to her children.
Piece of cake, right? These are people who disagree with me, after all! That statement is what they believe, isn't it?
Well, each of them kinda comes up and rubs a buttcheek against it, without actually saying it.
Cheezy won't say it. Instead, he says
> I also believe that more
> important than gender in raising
> a child is that parents be there
> for the kid
As if "parents" weren't who we've been talking about.
Vladdy won't say it. Instead, he says
> Most successful gay pairings (or
> strait ones) tend to have a top
> and bottom, masculine/feminine
> or ying/yang.
I'm not at all sure that's true, by the way. I know plenty of loving couples whose aggregate, apparent masculinity & feminity leans to or fro.
Ladeeda won't say it. Instead, she says
> The reason I don't accept your
> whole “a mother's love is
> special” argument is
> because...
A backhanded rejection, that.
Amy won't say it. Instead, she says
> The thing is, intact families,
> two parents -- or even more
> parents in a collective -- not
> day care.
...And her collapsed syntax is telling. She wants it to be about the number two, without saying two of what.
Loojy won't say it. Instead, he says
> I have to say that not all
> mothers are really that
> special
As if anyone had ever said otherwise.
So, nobody wants to go on record as saying a mother's love isn't essential. Maybe they know, in their deepest, quietest souls, that we're talking about perhaps the most powerful animal force in the heart of mankind. Maybe, despite whatever teenage bitterness they feel to their own parents, they remember in some primitive-man kind of way the hour when their own loving mother was who they could count on for comfort and safety. Maybe they're afraid of the silent mothers who are reading this message stack, the countless sensible women who'll righteously shriek at them for saying such a stupid thing out loud.
So they don't say it, even though they believe it... Like, whatever, man, as long as some other poor sap of a human being has to deal with the consequences.
Here then, is the tally of our competition so far:
Name / Courage of convictions?
_______________________
Cheezy___________ No
Vladdy___________ No
Ladeeda__________ No
Amy_____________ No
Loojy____________ No
Crid*____________ Yes
*Leads championship.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 11, 2009 9:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/09/news_to_pat_rob.html#comment-1647935">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]> in Sarah Hrdy's work. Have I already noted, twice in this thread and countless times throughout the years, that the deeply contextual reliance on "studies" for this argument is sort of chickenshit?
This isn't just studies - she's a working anthropologist in the field and a mother.
Amy Alkon at May 11, 2009 11:33 PM
Crid: You conflate marriage and parenthood. These things are not the same. All of your arguments on this issue are fallacious for that reason.
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 12:06 AM
Right, and I adore her. Hell, I've cited her myself, when challenging you.
But if you told me a scholarly mother said there was no such thing as gravitation, I wouldn't believe that, either. Neither anthropology nor motherhood itself constitutes high priesthood in this, um, magisterium.
Everyone who ever lived has had a profound experience with motherhood.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 12:12 AM
> All of your arguments on this
> issue are fallacious
Don't pout... Surrender.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 12:13 AM
Don't pout... Surrender.
Whatever. Gay couples can't procreate, and yet your whole argument against state recognition of their relationships rests on the idea that ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It strikes me as quite a stretch.
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 12:28 AM
> Gay couples can't procreate
So you agree that a child who doesn't have one of each parent is missing something? A backhanded concession, but I'll take it.....
> your whole argument against state
> recognition of their relationships
> rests on the...
Now Cheezy, that's not really so. (Reread.)
(It's great having you guys on the record like this... The topic's certain to recur.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 1:01 AM
Sorry crid, but I'm calling bullshit.
You say you are against gay marrige as it would depive children of either a mother or a father.
But you say nothing about singles adopting, or anything about not letting straights with children divorce for frivolus reasons, or anything about outlawing women using spermbanks or men using surrogates.
And then you say even whne they dont have kids straight people who get married benifit society.
Your narrow argument for protecting children of smae sex partners against the loss of one half of the sexual heritage falls aprt in the face of your refusal to argue the same for the children of heteros
lujlp at May 12, 2009 5:13 AM
We covered that, Loojy. Read it again, slowly. Take notes, trust your eyesight.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 7:28 AM
> Gay couples can't procreate
So you agree that a child who doesn't have one of each parent is missing something? A backhanded concession, but I'll take it.....
The one statement doesn't follow from the other.
Now Cheezy, that's not really so.
It really is so. Your whole argument against gay marriage boils down to the potential that children will deprived of both maternal and paternal influences.
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 7:35 AM
> The one statement doesn't follow
Of course it does. You're saying we're protected by biology, so 'don't worry....'
> Your whole argument against gay
> marriage boils down
Nobody can offer a thought on this blog without it being "boiled down" or extrapolated into something freaky or mischaracterized with "Basically, you say..."
There more to my argument, but depriving children of mothers and fathers is more than enough.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 7:57 AM
Crid the way you ramble on and parse words on this subject gets tedious, perhaps you could tell me the time of the post you are refereing to,
but so far as I remember, when I asked you if you would argue against single parenthood by choice and against petty divorces of those who have children as it results in the same single sex parenting enviornemnet that you use as a reason to deny same sex marriage, you said I was extrapolating
See my post on the 11 @441 am and you response directly below it @ 506 am
lujlp at May 12, 2009 8:14 AM
There more to my argument, but depriving children of mothers and fathers is more than enough.
How does it do that?
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 8:20 AM
Do what?
Guys, be interesting.
Loojy, you asked for an argument that I've already made here... I already *have* made arguments against single parenthood by choice. So your inference is inane. READ THE COMMENTS, ok?
This could be fun
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 9:48 AM
Do what
Read the previous sentence. Well, since you appear to be challenged with interpreting pronouns, I'll rephrase to avoid ambiguity:
How does gay marriage deprive children of mothers and fathers?
Does the gay mafia kidnap come kidnap children or kill one parent?
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 10:35 AM
Then why didnt you just say 'yes' instead of likening it to my killing sunday school children?
lujlp at May 12, 2009 10:39 AM
I've typed about 4500 fresh words on this page about this. Everything you're asking has already been covered, sometimes more than once. Over the years, I've probably typed ten times that many. But multiple repetitions on the same page are boring even to me.
If you come up with any fresh angles, be sure and speak up.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 2:01 PM
I assume that means you cannot answer the question directly.
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 3:14 PM
You can assume that I already did.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 12, 2009 4:40 PM
Nope. You hint around at things but you never make a direct statement.
Cheezburg at May 12, 2009 5:25 PM
Leave a comment