For the benefit of those who couldn't be bothered looking, the above quote in context reads as follows:

Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom has heavy experience in the
study of fetal deformities resulting from incest, and says that "There is
no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from
incestuous relationships [with a father or mother] run a greater risk of
being malformed than other children."
Carl Henry Olstrom, M.D. Medical World News , February 4, 1967.

However, three much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up
to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an
incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency.
Mary Meehan. "Facing the Hard Cases." Human Life Review , Summer
1983, pages 19 to 36.

From the standpoint of pure eugenics, we must ask ourselves two questions; (1)
"Are handicapped people as valuable as those who are not handicapped?," and, if the
answer to the first question is "No," we must ask ourselves the second question:
"Are we willing to kill a minimum of three perfectly healthy children for every one that
may have a handicap?"

The fact is, nature doesn't actually know the difference between good and bad traits. Suggesting that nature 'selects' just bad traits to pass on is ridiculous.
Maybe you should become a counsellor at your local hospital. Every time a couple arrives with a chance of their child carrying a birth defect you can tell them that the only option is to have it terminated.

Like I said, there hasn't been many in depth studies... if you would bother responding to what I posted. There was a testimonial, and then a citation about 3 studies. That article indicated that there hasn't been enough research on a large scale, and I said why there wouldn't be.

Nature may be indifferent to Down Syndrome, CF, and the thousands of other possibilities of what we call genetic deformities - but I'm not, and most others aren't. If society can agree that these are bad traits, then what is wrong with calling them bad traits?

You obviously missed the point that your second issue is absurd because the way of handling it via birth control is a Constitutional nightmare. My response showed how it was a nightmare, can you suggest a way around my scenario to address your second issue?

Adysav,

I don’t believe that the argument of homosexual immorality is valid in this debate.

The claim is made, that homosexuality is immoral and thus if we accept homosexuality then that would allow other immoral practices to be accepted as well and this perpetuate until America is the new incarnation of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This argument is very powerful and often used in homophobic circles. Yet one would notice that it is never used at face value in debates against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general. This is because the argument holds no logical value what so ever. It is an argument that is derived from the Old Testament, which is a questionable source for anything.

The government cannot base its laws on religious morals. This is because churches are often not the bastions of morality they claim to be. The Catholic Church condoned many un-constitutional law in the past, including slavery and the ban on interracial marriage. Further more when it comes to dispensing morality the Catholic Church is not the sole provider. There are many religions out there many of which have morals that are based on nothing greater then “because it’s written in our scriptures”. Therefore the government cannot use religious scriptures, personal opinions or traditions to determine the legality of homosexuality and same-sex marriage or any other issue, it must use logic.

Thus the above statement is false. The logical arguments questioning the validity of laws against incest and homosexuality are completely different (this must be apparent by now). Making one legal would not make the other legal because that is not how laws are not made nor unmade.

It should please you that that same holds true for morals and traditions. The past and enduring conflicts concerning race, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and divorce should show you that people hold on tightly to the past and many of them do not let it go even if laws are changed. The scaffolding of morality and tradition is very strong and this (as everything else) has an upside and a downside. Our strong inclination towards morals and traditions insures that we live in a cohesive society. As society changes and evolves (becomes multi-cultural/religious and educated) morals and traditions can become harmful to individuals. This is where our strong grasp on morality and tradition causes unnecessary and prolonged grief when simple logic would have resolved the problem right away.

I'm pointing out that your suggestion of making it illegal for incestuous couples to have children is ridiculous. An incestuous couple are not forced into conception by marrying. No one would suggest that any normal couple who have obviously high chances of bearing 'defective' children should be outlawed from having any, so why do it to anyone?

Let me see if i can underail this discussion:
"Marriage should be for loving consenting adults who aren't related and aren't animals." The whole "not being related" thing is now explicit rather than implicit. Let there be no more discussion of incest, because now you know that that isn't what is being advocated. If you want to argue the merits of incest you should start a new thread.

I believe it is ok for people to be homosexual. Nothing wrong with it, doesn't hurt anyone!!

Wow by the time I got through the variation in views I forgot what the original question was!

Ok..where to begin?

1. Where do I stand on gay marriage?
-Ok I just typed out this big long response to the question and then realized that my answer is pretty simple...so erased it and here is the short version.

If two people are in love and want to give marriage a try who cares let them do it....it happens everyday. Who cares what combination it is... opposite sexes or of the same sex. It is true that the original foundation of marriage was based upon the idea to reproduce or establish power and protect bloodlines. But those rules don't apply in this day and age.... there for sure isn't any shortage of people in our country so I don't think allowing gay marriages is going to create a deficit in American numbers. If anything we are running out of room...and should focus a little on a little population control (but that is a totally seperate topic).

Just to expand a little...
Being gay is not a lack of maturity or an illness or as simple as saying it's a sin...to some it is something they have chosen to experiment with, to some it is what they have always been. Being gay does not make you weak, if anything you have to be a pretty strong person to make a stand and be openly gay.
How you get your groove on...who you choose to love...and maybe want to marry...hey thats your own business...and I wish you the best of luck and there shouldn't be any bias laws that say any different.
Not that it matters but just for the record and any narrow-minded people.....I am not gay....but if I was I would be the Monty Python of homesexuals. "Later All"

Are you a retard?
I don't remember you being elected to decide what should and shouldn't constitute a valid state of marriage.
Since you brought up that point however, you might like to note that you just ended this discussion. The actual definition of marriage, as it was for thousands of years is "a union of a man and a woman". So we should just accept that then.
But wait, that was a the whole point of this thread, a discussion on whether we should accept the status quo of society's objection to homosexuality as immoral. Should homosexual couples be given the same status as everyone else and be allowed to marry.
The reason for bringing incest to the table was to see if the arguments put forward for legalising gay marriage actually hold water under all circumstances.

Kind of like saying
"Blacks can get married, but latinos can't because they're not white"

Discounting incestuous marriage based on personal prejudice is not the best approach to take when we're discussing homosexual marriage.

Years and years ago, the Greeks and Romans (who had similarly civilised lives to our own) had no qualms engaging in open homosexual relations, in addition to taking wives for the purposes of reproduction (and love of course - i.e. Helen of Troy etc, they weren't all gay, it was just accepted if you were)

I still wonder what the purpose is of marriage - not from an objective point of view, but a subjective one. I mean no-one gets married for the reasons highlighted in red, underlined and in bold. People get married for personal reasons - and it's those reasons that make people in single sex relationships want to get married too.

So what are those reasons, and are they as valid in a same-sex relationship as they are in a cross-sex relationship? If so, then let it be.

Are these feelings valid for incestuous couples? Maybe, but I'd say they are probably just as valid as they are for many other low-grade relationships out there (people who really shouldn't be with one another, but who remain together out of desparation, abuse and a combination of addiction or other personal problems) for which no-one has voiced any objection. Surely there is a case for stopping unsuitable couples (of any kind) from having children who, in all likelyhood, will grow-up impoverished, unhappy and unloved in an environment that teaches crime and violence. I am *not* going to make that case, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's there.

If there is a test, it should be whether both people understand the commitment they are making to one another and agree to solemnly abide by it.

The logical flow of your ideas is really hard to follow. You're creating all of these rules about what can and can't be looked at and I can't understand what you use to make determinations.

Incest and homosexuality are different issues, they have been universally identified as different issues. Racism between one race and then another is easy to identify as two different instances of racism. Claiming that homosexuality is wrong for a moral reason (the Bible doesn't like it, etc.) is different than the moral reason that people say that incest is wrong (it increases the chances of deformities which is bad for the community of humankind). Whether or not incest actually increases the probability of deformities can be discussed and argued about, but that should be done in another thread. The reality is, however, that many believe that incest causes genetic problems so to decompact "discrimination" against incest requires significant proof that there is no increased chance of offspring having deformities.

No one is arguing whether homosexuality causes deformities, so it seems to me that the argument that these are both moral issues misses the point that they are different moral issues.

Not really.
The argument goes like this:

"Marriage should not be exclusive to straight couples. It should be available to all consenting adults of whatever sexuality."
That's ok, fine by me. Next...
"However, related couples should be excluded."

This is often qualified with:
"Related couples are more likely to produce defective offspring."
All making sense so far? This implies that a couple should not be allowed to marry/procreate etc, if there is an increased chance of deformity.

"By this reasoning, it should be illegal for non-related couples who are more likely to produce defective offspring to marry."
So if deformed children can be used against incestuous couples, it should be used against everyone to assure equality. That's what this debate is all about right, the same rights for everyone?

By this logic, anything that anyone believes is automatically considered the truth until someone can prove otherwise. Excuse me if I thought the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim.

We should scrap the related couple clause alltogether - people get married (in the main) because they are in love, not because they want to produce genetically superior offspring.

A relationship between relatives is frowned upon not necessarily due to the fact that it might bear fruit, but because we imagine that incestuous relationships must be borne from a failure to integrate with the world external to the family. It's this insular sociological symptom that we find troubling, not the potential for mutant babies.

It was a question, not a statement.

I mostly agree with zen_tom, but wanted to clarify a couple things. It's not really true that Greeks "accepted you if you were gay." First of all, homosexual activity was only supposed to be between a mentor and his students. Adult homosexual relationships were frowned upon (Cf. The Symposium), since it was assumed one person had to take a subservient role, and so would be feminized. Moreover, it seems that generally the Greeks didn't have the category of 'gay' as such. They believed that one was attracted to beauty, and that more often than not, beauty was instantiated in the figure of a young boy.

I was trying to make this discussion about homosexuality and not incest. If you want to make a passionate plea for the acceptance of incest within the framework of an argument for homosexual marriage, by all means. Unfortunately, advocating for gay marriage using terms that could also be used to advocate for incestuous marriage does not mean that one is advocating for incestuous marriage.

For the record, if you're going to give me a written thrashing for attempting to define the word marriage(what this discussion is really all about), at the very least make sure your definition of marriage is accurate. Marriage has not been "for thousands of years 'a union of a man and a woman'". Polygamy has been around for quite a while too. It is a good thing that you weren't elected to define marriage, because your definition seems to be a little ignorant of reality.

As for finding arguments that hold water under all circumstances, perhaps you should stick to mathematics. In the actual world there are exceptions to every rule. You don't hear a lot of pro-2nd amendment people advocating for the right to bear nuclear arms, even though they probably should to be consistent. You don't hear a lot of abortion opponents advocating for the complete criminalization of all abortions under all circumstances, even though that would be the most idealogically consistent thing to do. Welcome to reality. Newtonian physics doesn't even hold water under all circumstances. Are we going to hear your passionate argument as to why the kinematics is a farce?

It has gotten to the point where i am unable to determine what the your point even is. Earlier, you claim that you could care less about the issue, and that your perspective on marriage is

The problem is that you don't have a position on the issue beyond this statement. You keep digging, and right now all you have is your own inablility to understand a nuanced argument. People make conditional statements all of the time concerning issues of politics and philosophy. Pointing them out often does little to take away from the power of a particular argument, especially when the particular inconsistency has little to do with the actual issue at hand.

An example:

Guy: I think people should have the right to bear arms just like it says in the second amendment because people are the last line of defense against government tyranny.

Adysav: So you think everybody should be able to buy nuclear armaments?

Guy: No, that would be stupid, are you crazy?

Adysav: Your entire perspective is inconsistent and invalid.

Chewbacca is a wookie, ladies and gentlemen.


The reason i made a qualifying statement based on the relationship of those involved was simply to claim that the fight for incest should be examined on its own merits and not as an extension of the argument for homosexual marriage. Clearly, you are unable to make that distinction so you say things like, "Are you a retard".

Here's a summary of your position:

Me: Gays should be allowed to marry, there isn't any logically consistent reason why they shouldn't.

You: So your saying that a brother and sister should be able to get married?

Me: No, you don't understand. You're interpreting my statements in a way that is convenient for your purposes, which are to skirt the discussion of whether there are any logically consistent reasons to oppose gay marriage, and instead turn the discussion into one that is completely irrelevant to the issue.

You: Are you a retard?

Me: You just said more about yourself right there than i would have ever tried to get away with saying about you on the tfp. You don't actually have any logically consistent arguments against gay marriage, all you have is: which is about as much thought as you seem to be willing to put into the actual issue of homosexual marriage.

I'll take the bait though. I retract my statement that marriage is about two people who actually care about eachother, related or not. I concede, for the purpose of exposing your complete lack of anything else to talk about in this thread(aside from the passionate argument for incest), that the requirements of marriage should be based solely on the genitalia of those involved. Now, enlighten me as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tell me why the institution of marriage should be solely limited to one man and one woman.

Indeed, I would like to add to what Filtherton said by asking you again to look closer at the nuance of what I had written. I wrote that <i><u><b>most people</i></b></u> believe that incest generates a much higher chance of genetically caused birth defects. You're claiming that I'm telling you something other than the realistic truth. Do you really think that most people don't think that incest contributes to the possibility of there being birth defects? I don't.

Simply put: I think that you'll have a lot of convincing to do to establish that incest doesn't contribute to the chances of genetic birth defects considering: a) logically, it makes a lot of sense that incest would cause birth defects, b) history has examples of incestuous family lines that have many genetic deformities in them, and c) nearly all cultures in the world have have anti-incest taboos.

So, to summarize: You are making a claim that most people disagree with - it is upon you to prove that what you are saying (which goes against common wisdom and observations) has validity.

If you don't understand what I'm getting at you could just say so instead of getting all defensive
Noone is advocating incestuous marriage.

I'm not even american and I know that the 2nd amendment states that civilians should have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Noone would expect a civilian militia to have nuclear weapons.

Newtonian mechanics were designed to work under the circumstances Newton could experiment within. ie everyday objects on a macroscopic scale. I imagine you're referring to quantum mechanics, but since on a macroscopic level there is so little quantum effect as to be unmeasurable in most circumstances, Newtonian mechanics still holds for the purposes which is was designed.

I was using your statements to determine whether they are logically consistent under all situations that are possible within your definition of marriage.

Is the section in bold what you actually meant to put, or is it a typo. Either way could you clarify it? Thanks :cool:

A hundred years ago most people believed masturbation was the cause of insanity. You can't make a claim based on what most people think. It's true that the children of consanguineous couples are more likely to inherit defects.
Stating it as fact because 'most people believe it to be the case' is intellectually dishonest.

So if most people believed homosexuality gave you brain tumours, you wouldn't be arguing for it, because it would require some effort to dispell people's assumptions?

I challenge you to quote me saying that incestuous unions do not bear children that are more prone to defects than 'normal' couples. I haven't said that, and that is definitely not my point, you have the wrong end of the stick.
I'm saying that the increased risk of defects is not an issue. It should not dictate whether a couple can marry or not.
You would not bar a regular couple who were equally at risk, and as someone already said, having children is not an essential component of getting married, and as such should not be taken into account.

Thanks for proving my point. :icare::suave: :thumbsup:

I bolded the important parts.

Adysav

There is no “next”. You cannot refute the validity of a statement by attacking the motives of the individuals who made it.

I'll second that. Can we leave it at that?

How so?

What are you talking about?

Ah, I see, all of your talk about incest and defects is totally moot to the subject of homosexuality. Well, to give you my opinion about incest, I think that there are several reasons to abhor it. The increased chance of genetic disorders is part of it, but I do see it as more of a sociological problem. When people are unable or unwilling to leave the comfort of their own genetic lines that indicates a social deficiency. Incest is particularly disturbing in many cases because there seems to be one person who has a major power advantage over the other that is abusive. I think that anti-incest laws/taboos are meant to protect society from defective offspring and from developing a sort of inverted social system.

The nature of social contracts is that there is going to be a tension between minorities and the majority. I can't imagine there being many minorities much smaller than the incestuous portion of society. I have noticed that society has become more accepting of homosexuality and other "alternative" lifestyles and I have heard some speak of incest that it will be one of the next taboos to fall. I doubt it will soon, but I really don't know for the future. I think that there are lots of disadvantages to growing up to an incestuous couple, but there also are for lots of other people born into great disadvantage (like poverty). Ultimately, I don't think it should be my decision for who should and shouldn't get married or have kids. But - as I outlined in my hypothetical circumstances for how to ensure couples of incest don't have children (per your contraception clause) - I think people will have great difficulty giving up the structure that prevents incest from being acceptable and the possibility of incestuous couples having children.

I find it difficult to look at social issues as "right" or "wrong" but as what can be done legislatively about the situation given the social climate. I don't know if there's much that can be done for the social acceptance for incest, or if there should be much done for it. At least, personally, I won't champion it and I'm content with any anti-incest legislation on the books.

Then you clearly don't understand my point. If you don't understand what I'm getting at by now, just stop replying to my posts. The attempts to permeate your skull with reason have failed and I don't really think I can be bothered any more.
How kind, but I asked for clarification, not repetition.
I was merely reiterating what other people had said. What people are coming out with is simply:
"All consenting adults should be allowed to marry, except incestuous ones, for some reasons which you would never even consider applying to other couples."
In short that's discrimination. I thought this whole debate was about removing the discrimination from marriage.
If you don't understand why promoting hearsay as fact is dishonest, then there is nothing I can say here that will help.

Ah, well, I'm not being intellectually dishonest because I'm not saying that it is a fact that everyone thinks that incest causes genetic deformities. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that most people think that incest cause genetic deformities. My claim is that in my observations, the majority of people that I've seen that make comments about incest do it in conjuntion with comments about genetic deformities. My claim is about the observed public opinion that I've seen.

I even asked you: "Do you really think that most people don't think that incest contributes to the possibility of there being birth defects?" If you don't think so, then it would have been helpful to respond so that I could know where you are coming from.

I never said most people didn't. I believe most people do think that. I think that incestuous couples produce for defective couples than other couples. The reason I believe this however, is because studies have been undertaken to assess it, I do not believe it purely on the grounds of public opinion.

I'm making points about public opinion, not that I'm right because others opinions agree with mine. Laws and taboos are based on what people think and feel regardless of whether it is true or not, and I think that is more at issue here than anything.

Then why didnt you just post the suggestion that a referendum would solve the problem?

Oh, don't let me bother you.

I don't mean to keep repeating you, but i would imagine that i could say the same thing to you just as accurately.

I know what you're trying to say, and i don't find it particularly compelling for reasons that i have already explained to you.

In a thread about homosexuality you are arguing about whether one can succesfully argue for gay marriage based on the idea that all loving couples should be allowed to marry and not argue for incest. It's an argument at least an order away from the issue at hand. It isn't particularly important because even if your incest gambit negated the idea that all loving couples should be allowed to marry there still are compelling reasons to allow gay marriage. You aren't destroying the lynchpin of the pro-gay marriage argument. You're grasping at straw.

It's hardly far off the argument. It's a situation which is in essence the same as the homosexual one, at least within the arguments previously given. I can't help it if people aren't specific enough.

Well why didn't you say that in the first place. Anyway, let's hear the reasons.

They're all back on page one and two. I want to hear some compelling reasons against legal recognition of gay marriage.

If there was a world beating reason on page 2, why are we on page 4?
From what I can gather the arguments on the first two pages weren't particularly well received.

Everyone was distracted by incest.

Let me sum it up, though. There is no good reason not to allow gays to marry.

Just to reiterate, with the help of a Mantus quote here:

Adysav is arguing that the reason above for disallowing incestuous marriages is not a good reason. Or not good enough, at any rate. That seems to be where the argument stands right now.

Although I have a question for adysav, for clarification: are you against allowing homosexual or incestual marriages?

Because I don't think that it would solve the problem due to the likelihood that people wouldn't agree to it if it was placed on a ballot. Additionally, I don't think that there is enough will anywhere to get enough signatures to get it on a ballot, to get any legislator to bring it to Congress, or even to get money to pay lobbyists to advocate for incest rights. Just imagine the way CNN, FOXNews, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. would destroy the political career of a Congressperson who advocates for making incest legal.

On further thought, from my last response, I'd like to add that since there are so many more homosexuals that are becoming open in our society, more exposure to homosexuals in the media, famous people who are gay, and more social connections between homosexuals and straight people (compared to connections between incestuous families and everyone else) that homosexuals have a much greater chance to make it into the political agenda and have a political voice. Of course, the attempts of homosexuals to get political rights is very much reminiscent of the social movements in the 1960s with the backlashes that are occurring today. Since there are so many homosexuals and homosexual advocates today, the concept of a movement is viable. The arguments against homosexuality do not include things like having a larger tax on society for having to take care of children who have deformities and such. When asked: "how does allowing gays to get married affect me personally?" I don't think there is much that anyone can say personally against it.

I do not see the same kinds of variables for incest, and I doubt that this will change any time soon.

Adysav,

Your summary is a very warped view of the posts found on this thread. It is YOU who claims that these two issues are related. I would like you to take more then a few seconds to write a brisk reply but actually explain your stand, explain your argument and prove your point.

In order for the two topics to be related they need to share a common ground. Same-sex marriage does not share the same issues as incest and the arguments advocating same-sex marriage do not dislodge any of the arguments against incest.

There is nothing negative about same-sex marriage that should force us to take away that right from same-sex couples.

There are negative aspects to incest. Once the arguments concerning incest’s are proven false, then and only then, will incest share a common ground with same-sex marriage. But I am just repeating myself now…

The “equality” angle just doest work. We can’t let people do whatever they want. If an action harms the individual, other people or society then it should not be legal. Only when the issues surrounding incest are dispelled can the “equality” card be played.

This thread is not really about gay marriage at all. It's interesting how some people are hell bent on pushing their political agenda onto this discussion. If you want to have a realistic debate here, then get back to the topic at hand. The same reasons people are against incest are the same reason people are against homosexuality in general: they find it distasteful and that is that. The rationalizing tends to come after the base desire to judge a particular behavior. This applies whether you are for or against a sociological issue.

Regarding the original question of whether homosexuality is immoral or not, I claim that it is not. Morality involves choice. I do not believe that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex. Therefore, homsexuality cannot be judged in a moral context.

Regarding the political question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I am still unsure.

Alright, here's a brand new argument for anti-gay marriage: I wish to have grandchildren. I want my genetic material passed on, to have a nice big extended family, and I want that as likely as possible to happen.

Now, given that homosexual couples cannot have children on their own, if one of my children were to be a homosexual, I would not get any grandchildren from that child. (on a side note, I wouldn't disown a homosexual child or anything, but I *would* prefer that they were heterosexual).

I know that not all homosexuals are born that way. Sure, I bet at least some are, but some also aren't. Case in point: my girlfriend has several aunts. Two of them are identical twins. One of these twins is happily married and has three kids, and occasionally flirts with other men (jokingly, of course). The other twin is a lesbian, who usually brings whichever woman she is dating at the moment to family gatherings. So not all homosexuality is genetic or hormones in the womb or whatever.

This implies that social and environmental factors can affect sexual orientation. I feel that one of these factors would be gay marriage. It would be a sign that homosexuality is perfectly equal to heterosexuality in every way, and I could definitely see a lot of written material about that tossed into the school system. Books about how Bobby doesn't like Cindy and so he marries Michael instead, or how Prince Charming didn't like any of the girls at the mall and so he marries Prince Dashing instead. This would be at an age where the opposite sex still has cooties and the idea of marrying your best friend might seem like a good idea. (btw, that Prince + Prince book was already written, and put in an elementary school, until the school realized what they had and then removed it from their collection)

So I think that gay marriage will promote homosexuality (or remove a negative social stigma from it, same effect) and thus lower my chances of having grandchildren.

I think this is more of a personal argument, rather than a legally defendable one, but it is one reason why I oppose gay marriage which has not yet been brought up.

Which is why it is really easy to argue against. Rather than wanting the most fulfilling lives for your children you'd rather have them adopt the sexuality of your choice for your benefit. That is very selfish, and definitely not legally defendable.

The questions that go along with this are - why is it so important for your children to have children? Why do you think that accepting homosexuality will greatly, significantly, or even minutely decrease your chance of having grandchildren? Does removing a stigma truly increase the chances that someone will be gay - or just openly gay? Is it not true that gay couples can have children (with help from others), and, in fact, it would be easier for gay couples to have this kind of help in a society that supports them?

There are many reasons that people have or do not have children, if I have children I will not be upset if they choose to not have children of their own. In fact, there are so many children out there who have no parents of their own, I see adoption as one of the most noble and necessary options out there and if my children chose adoption I would be proud of them.

No no, you misunderstand. If my children are gay, it would be better to be openly gay, but I would rather not have my children who would be otherwise straight altered to be homosexual by environmental or social influences. Furthermore, I would think it would be more fulfilling to have children of your own seed than adopting. I'd prefer it if my children were Christians, too. And I'd prefer if they weren't socially maladjusted rapists, regardless of whether that would be satisfying to them.

The desire to pass on one's genetic code is an intrinsic feature in all organisms; it's the reason why we have sex drives. I think I have good genes. Intelligence, creativity, and above average physical fitness run in my family, and I would like more intelligent, creative, healthy people around.

I feel that gay marriage will, as my post stated, be a social factor encouraging homosexuality, and thus make it more likely (probably only slightly, I doubt there would be a change of more than 5% or so) that my children will not be of a sexual orientation where they can procreate with their spouse.

As for removing the stigma increasing the chances of homosexuality vs open homosexuality, unfortunately no data will be available, because as far as I am aware, there were no good scientific surveys taken with options to put down "openly gay, closet gay, openly bisexual, closet bisexual...".

It does become possible for gay couples to have children with the aid of others, but not with their partner. This would be costlier and more difficult to do than having children the natural way, however, and only half the kids would end up as my genetic grandchildren if they split them that way.

Gay marriage would be more than the removal of a stigma; it would be a watershed ruling on homosexuality as a whole. Books like the ones I mentioned earlier would be forced into the school system in an effort to encourage equality, just as books containing messages which I approve of, such as gender and racial equality, have been. I am sure that other media would also begin to spout pro-homosexual messages, such as TV specials.

Your last point on how there are many children with no parents in need of adoption is not a good one, however, at least in America. The waiting lists for adopting children are quite long. There are more would-be parents than healthy adoptable children at this point.



I also found a source a while back stating that 10% of children raised by homosexual couples became homosexuals (which, as the site claimed is consistent with average for the Kensey(sp?) study, which has since been found to be a biased study) compared with the average found on nearly every other population study of 3-4%. This is more of an aside in the current argument, but it does back up the post made by Halx a while back.

This is very interesting, but I'm not surprised noone has responded to it.
I will admit that I don't like homosexuality or incest and marriage as such, but I believe that equal rights are a good thing, so I'm for both.
We aren't talking about whether it would be made legal, but whether it should on the ground of equal rights.
gondath seems to have the point.
The definition of marriage people were using in order to bring homosexual union within it's boundaries does not exclude incestuous couples.
Basically "loving consenting adults". If you include one and not the other it is just a judgement based on your personal tastes.
Please point out to me which of the following are exclusive to incest/polygamy (I'm including polygamy as FoolThemAll raised it again).

• Weak relationship
• Complicated custody/inheritance/divorce settlements
• Birth defects
• Abuse within a relationship

How can we talk about whether something should be made legal if we don't look at all of the consequences of trying to do so? Just like how in any revolution the who lead the revolutions have to ask themselves if the violence and disorder is worth going through for a cause. Or like how our Social Security system is having serious troubles sustaining itself, but politicians are doing what they can to keep from changing it significantly because so many people are depending on it and expecting it.

Many things should be done for equal rights and consistency theoretically, but remembering that the rights you are speaking of only exist as state-sponsered rights that are freedoms-from because legislation has passed there is more to consider than "yes/no" questions. I don't want the best politicians out there that are fighting hard for my rights, the rights of the poor, education, etc. to lose their legitimacy by trying to pass controversial legislation that there isn't a will to pass. Should politicians try to make incest legal on the grounds of equal rights? No, because that is political suicide.

Do you care enough about incest rights to forego the ability of politicians to advocate for other things that are important to you and your vision of society?

Your argument against it has basically come down to "it would be a pain to have it legalised". Does this mean you support it in principle?

It's a good job people didn't take the same stance on black rights, women's rights and the human rights issues during WWII.

You intentionally misquote me but not quoting what I actually said, and then compare me to someone who was complicit during the Holocaust. Nice rhetorical trick, very intellectually honest.

As I said earlier, there is no will to legalize incest. To champion that issue would be political suicide and is not going to accomplish anything. I'm not saying that it would simply be a "pain" to have it legalized. I'm saying that it won't get legalized at this point, even if a few champions of it emerge in Congress.

Additionally, as I also wrote earlier, this issue does not carry the same weight as other social movements in the past (which, particularly, is why it can't get the political backing for change).

I think that much of the confusion of this thread can be alleviated by the pro-gay marriage side listing their points as to why the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex partners. A proper argument on the side of why gay marriage should be legalized would make it far easier to make points/counterpoints.

You missed his point. Regardless of how difficult (or impossible) it would be to legalize incest, regardless of whether this is the ideal time to make an attempt, is legalizing incest a desirable action? Would you support its legalization if such advocacy wasn't political suicide?

But it'd be equally useful for you to list reasons why the definition should not be changed. And if you can't come up with a solid reason, then it matters little how weak the pro-gay marriage points are. You listed an interesting one, gay marriage increasing homosexuality. Assuming for a moment that your anecdotal evidence was sufficient, and assuming that homosexuality is immoral in some way, here is my response: mere negative influence is not a sufficient reason to disallow something. KKK leaflets shouldn't be illegal, nor should condoms (to use an example outside of free speech), despite my belief that the presence of either in society carrys a negative influence.

Mo42,

Finally an argument that gets at the heart of the matter, very nice.

I too think (based purely on observation) that homosexuality is as much a due to nurture as it’s due to nature. Making homosexuality culturally acceptable will push the people who would normally suppress their natural tendencies and force themselves into pursuing heterosexual relationships.

Yet this is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that making homosexuality socially acceptable makes people happy because it allows them to live the lives they want to live without being shamed into doing something they don’t want too.

Procreation of genes is certainly a part of every living thing, yet we cannot force this on other people. There are other situations besides homosexuality where people choose not to have children and it would be wrong to steer people away from these paths.

So as Wilbjammin mentioned your (and most likely everyone’s) hope of having grandchildren is in conflict with the happiness of the individual. I just think it’s too weak of a case to stand up against making homosexuality socially acceptable; the margins of loss are too small. Sure it would be nice for our sons/daughters to have our grandchildren but that is their decision to make.



Adysav,

[sarcasm]…thanks, that is exactly what I mean by an “explanation of your augment that takes more then a few seconds to write”. [/sarcasm]

I get it (at least I hope that I do). You think same-sex marriage argument will also make incestuous marriages lawful. You claim that the “loving consenting adults” argument will do this. I claim it will not because even though incestuous couples may be “loving and consenting adults” there are still other problems with their relationship that must be eliminated - problems that same-sex marriages do no share. No once again can you PLEASE put some effort into actually explaining your argument and proving your point. I ask this because every time I reply to one of your posts I always have to guess at exatly what you are trying to prove.

As I already mentioned, it is believed that there are higher chances of these problems occurring within incestuous and/or polygamous relationships. That would the base of the lawful argument against them. It is these arguments that separate these issues and same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages do not suffer from problems of being weak relationships, complicated custody/inheritance/divorce settlements, birth defects or abuse within the relationship any more then normal heterosexual marriages.

The thing is though, it's currently illegal, and there should be reasons to change it if we will. I mean, we could just abolish income tax and implement a nationwide sales tax and make the same amount of money, but we should probably come up with a good reason to change it rather than just do it.

I see what you mean. Here's one for starters, others can chime in or reiterate reasons to change already stated:

Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of stable, permanent two-parent households receptive to adopting children currently in foster care.

Civil Rights. Our federal government is based on equal rights and liberties for all without regard to race, religion, gender, and, for now, sexual orientation. That principle must be upheld. When we start to legalize discrimination against any group, where do we go from there? From a purely pollitical point of view it is ridiculous that this is even being tossed about.

Now, how are homosexuals being discriminated against? They can still marry, no one is preventing them from doing so. They do wish to marry outside of the current legal bounds of marraige, however.

The number of stable, permanent two-parent households receptive to adopting children is currently greater than the number of children in foster care, as demonstrated by the long, long waiting lists for adoption. Perhaps this argument would carry more weight in India, but not in the United States.

Is seperate now equal? Marriage is a religious word and recognizing only a specific religion's definition of the word is a violation of the first amendment.

So is the, "Legal gay marriage will mean more gay people" argument the only thing the antigay marriage side can come up with, because that's only half an argument. I sympathize with your desire to have grandchildren, but i were you i'd be more concerned about polution control regulations than whether you're kids are going to go gay. I think you're reaching here. Even if legalized gay marriage increased the number of gay folks by any reasonable amount you're hard pressed to support the assertion that that would be a bad thing.

Adysav, i'm still waiting for your good reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Well, I guess there is still one or two states they can go to and get married, assumming the constitutional ammendmant fizzles - it will. But having laws on the books that seperate ANY specific group of people, let alone a protected class, and using said laws to treat them in a way that is different (not better or worse, just different) than the rest of the country, that is discrimination.

Our forefathers were smart enough to know that tradition wouldn't be sufficient argument for laws as our country grew and evolved. Why are people having a hard time with that today?

Ah, now here you might have me. If certain religions begin recognizing gay marraiges, there might not be a whole lot I can say. But so far, the gay marriages that I have been aware of (eg San Francisco, although those were later voided) were state-sponsored, not church-sponsored. So that argument doesn't fly... yet.

Any church that defines itself as "open and affirming" accepts gays and most likely performs gay marriages.

Filtherton, if you really were reading my posts you'd notice I'm for homosexual marriage... but since you insist.

Children of same-sex couples will fall into one of two categories, foster children or surrogate children.

Surrogate: Issues may arise with the biological parent who is outside the marriage. The non-biological parent in the marriage may feel resentment and less attachment to the child, similar to a step-parent. Either way, there are biological ties overlapping the marriage with potential for abuse or conflict.

Foster:
Children died as a result of abuse in foster care 5.25 times more often than children in the general population.
Source

In either case you could argue that there is no maternal instinct within a gay couple. Traditional custody settlements have usually ended with the mother gaining custody because she is more capable of caring for a child, unless she is proved unfit.


Mantus, I did write a lengthy reply, then my browser hung and I lost it all. If I can be bothered I'll rewrite it in a bit.

I know, but you seemed to imply that you wanted to argue against it.

Well, these are more arguments against surrogate and foster parenthood than gay marriage.


You could argue, but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought that men are less capable of raising functional children. Tradition is not in and of itself a justification for anything. I would argue that traditional custody settlements are full of shit, for the same reasons that the traditional idea that men are incapable of raising children effectively are full of shit.

And your arguments against incest were more against people with genetic disorders than incestuous couples.
They are still valid arguments against same-sex couples because they must be one or the other.

It isn't, but the tradition is based on the fact that women are biologically better equipped, physically and mentally, to raise children.

I never argued against incest, i just argued that it was irrelevant. Like i said before, i believe in consenting adults.


That is hardly a fact. Any more than the "fact" that women are less able to handle themselves in a business environment, or any of the other vaguely sexist "facts" that most of the twentieth century based its traditions on.

It might be irrelevant to you, but I consider it a test of people's conviction on the subject.
Women are more naturally predisposed to caring for children and are more emotionally capable, in general. Saying this is not even remotely equivalent to judging their worth in such a bizarre construct as merchant banking, for example.
Obviously this is very hard to qualify objectively, but it is very fashionable these days to treated men and women as absolute equals even though it is not the case. Soldiers for example are very rarely female, and with good reason.

Gender stereotypes are only applicable when you employ them, mine are irrelevant? I see. You can't embrace stereotypes selectively. Either men are more emotionally suited to certain things and women are more emotionally suited to certain other things or all people are adaptable and capability depends on the person rather than the gender of the person. How deep is your conviction on this subject?

Sounds more like your opinion to me. It would be just as accurate if i were to claim that men are just more naturally predisposed to the kind of objectivity and dispassion necessary in the business world.

Even if women were more capable child rearers(which you admit there is little actual evidence of), that doesn't mean that all men, or even most men, are incapable of raising children effectively.

It is very hard to qualify because it is bullshit. It isn't hard to understand why infantry are rarely female. I'll help: The army thinks women are less capable in the role of infantry because women are typically smaller and less muscular than men. That is a fact. The army also thinks gay men are less capable, even though they're still men. The army thinks a lot of things that may or may not be accurate. That is why the army isn't in charge of social policy. If women are less capable, why are there policewomen or firewomen? What you're saying would be the equivalent of claiming that men are more capable of the business of war than women are on a fundamental emotional level, which is another assertion you'll find nearly impossible to support effectively.

It is very fashionable to treat men and women as equals, because for the most part, they are.

You couldn't hit the fucking point if it was an elephant three feet away.
You would have to define what sort of traits are required to be successful in the business world.
On the one hand empathy and higher social capabilities might help a women be successful. Objectivity and dispassion might help make a man successful.

Objectivity and dispassion are less likely to make you a better parent than a woman however, your child is not a company car.

I introduced the armed forces bit because a friend of mine covered this in his thesis. The fact is that on average women exert 80% more energy than men to achieve the same results in a battlefield situation, therefore they are less efficient. What the army thinks about gays is not really an issue, so there was hardly any point mentioning it.

The work of the emergency services doesn't revolve solely around beating up criminals in as efficient a manner as possible. Women are more accomplished at resolving issues such as domestic abuse, if solely because the presence of a woman might calm the victims.

Along with everything else you've said, you've really showed your biases and social programming by your implied definitions of success. I disagree with you wholeheartedly.

How do you measure energy exerted? Where's the study that says this? And even if this was true, does it really matter? Is all that matters in war is efficiency? I am not convinced that all that matters in war is the ability to efficiently kill. Particularly when I look at how Iraq is now, and see how the war has turned into a nightmare in its unpredictability and change in tactics. Truly, how can one say that men are better in this situation than women? I'm finding this really hard to grasp giving the over-simplification by abstraction that you've presented.

My point was that you can use whatever definition of success you like and the end product may be achieved, despite the inherent differences. More than one way to skin a cat, if you will.
Obviously it would be crude to suggest that the approaches are completely separate, and that no areas of overlap (or complete overlap) occur.

However business is not intrinsically linked to one sex despite the chauvinist attitudes employed therein, but child birth and child care is.
Are you actually interested, or implying that it can't be done?
One way is to measure the oxygen intake of the body, but I don't know what particular methods were used in the study, like I said it was a friend of mine who really got into this. I trust him and the academic staff not to be just talking out of their arses.
Noone mentioned the only need for efficiency was in killing. Any task someone might find themselves doing during a war is affected. If your whole operation is nearly twice as slow as the enemy, you're screwed.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? One example might be that women are much less respected in society than men in the middle east, even if all else was equal they still wouldn't be suitable. Perhaps now the war in a traditional sense is over they could undertake a role much like that i described of policewomen. This is hardly still a war, more like an occupation met with civilian resistance.

All i'm asking for is some consistency. I see your point, you're basically trying to claim that men are less capable parents than woman and using this idea to bolster your assertion that gay marriage would be bad thing because it would take mothers out of their most efficient role as child bearers. Does that sound about right?

You accuse me of being thick-headed while you seemingly couldn't understand a point that didn't originate in your own skull if it was rammed into your head a la clockwork orange.

Let me reiterate my point to you, though. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that men are any less capable parents than woman. None. Not one shred that isn't completely anecdotal. I don't care if your friend wrote a million papers regarding a woman's ability to exert 80% more energy because that is not relevant. Even if it was, "I know a guy who says this" is rarely sufficient evidence for anything under any circumstances. Is that the clarity you've been begging for?

Seriously, you're fucking with me, right? You expect me to take you seriously when all you can do when on the defensive is throw out a handful of generalizations based on your own half-baked perspective?

Now, feel free to respond by ignoring everything that i just said, like you seem to like to do.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/announcement.php?f=56

Tune in next week to see if I ever get tired of quoting your ad homiem attacks, and posting the link to the forum rules beneath them.

Stick to your arguement. I don't agree with a single word of it...but it's not so weak as to require personal insults.

As far as I know the university doesn't pass people who's argument is based on anecdotal evidence. The studies are there, I just don't know his sources as I didn't write the thing. It's hardly just a case of "he said this so it's right". We could both sit here and discredit each others sources based on our own personal opinion, but it doesn't get us to a reasonable conclusion.
Surely you can agree with me that men and women have a different fundamental physiological make-up.
I know I'm crap at citing my sources, but I read an article in a science magazine about work done in India regarding intelligence. Something similar here. Basically the findings were that intelligence is linked to genetics. What this is saying is that your psychological make-up is strongly influenced by your physical make-up.
It isn't an unreasonable suggestion that men and women are therefore psychologically different. These points are covered in the following articles (the 2nd one is particularly interesting).

Men, Women More Different Than Thought
Understanding The Difference Between Men And Women

edit: you poor, poor people... I'm away for the rest of the week :rolleyes:

As far as i know, unless i see a name and an article from a reputable source, i don't know your friend from jayson blair.

So now we've gone from "Men are less capable of raising children." to "Men and women are physically and psychologically different." Ooooooooooookay, i know that men and women are in a general sense, different. Women have the boobies and men have the peepees. I know that, in general, they have psychological differences too. That is nothing new. However, you're not doing much to support your assertion that men are less capable of raising children. We know men and women are often different, but we don't know the cause (how much is nature and how much is nurture) or the extent to which people are bound by their genitalia. An article on the differences between men and women medically and an article on the differences between men and women mentally don't mean anything in the context of your position. Find me an article that says point blank that women are conclusively better at raising children than men to such an extent that allowing a child to be raised in a household without women poses a real and significant danger to that child's future well being. Without that, your position on gay marriage means nothing.

:confused: :confused: oh yeah, :crazy: :crazy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay....now that we can get back to the topic.

Homophobia, is fear. Racism is fear. My question would be:

What the hell are these people afraid of?

Losing power, but more importantly, of themselves.

It's fascinating how people look at their opponent's positions and automatically assume they are afraid. Does it help an argument to think of the opposing side as cowards?

Funny....I do not remember accusing someone of cowardice, but instead a mindset, nor do I have an opponent. I was stating a fact (thus the meaning behind the term Phobia), and asking a question. If indeed you are implying that you are homophobic or racist, that would be a different story. Yet I would still prefer not to be considered an opponent, rather I would be very interested in finding out what the reasoning behing these feelings could be.
The only logical (to me) reason for either of these states of mind would be fear, as I dislike the term ignorance. Even the ignorant excuse is limited however, as one can always gain knowledge and subdue such things. Thus we are again left with fear, whether as suggested it is of a loss of power/control, or a fear of understanding that which is different.

An article summing up my position quite nicely can be found here:

Orson Scott Card's take on homosexual marriage

It is very long, so it is only for the very patient. It sums up my feelings on the subject in a more eloquent manner than I can.

weee, internet :icare:
Obviously every study is worthless without a reputable name attached, and every reputable supplier of articles is unbiased and 100% accurate. Different methods produce different outcomes even with the best of intentions.
Why don't you pick up on all the cases where people are blatantly lying.

"Same-sex marriages do not suffer from problems of being weak relationships, complicated custody/inheritance/divorce settlements, birth defects or abuse within the relationship any more then normal heterosexual marriages." courtesy of Mantus.
Where does this information come from? How did someone manage to study homosexual marriage when it isn't legal yet?

I'm trying to establish that women are clearly naturally predisposed to the care of children by their nature. It comes naturally to women.
During the incest argument, you basically claim there must be some validity in the incest taboo because most people believe so. I don't know about where you live, but where I live most people would consider the mother the better parent.
It would be very hard to prove, but that does not make it wrong by default. I have yet to see proof to the contrary. (Conveniently the burden of proof appears to fall on me every time, even when it seems so obvious to everyone else that their arguments are correct regardless of evidence.)

The studies I found seem to support the same conclusion...

“People have assumed that the sex of the parent has a major effect on children’s development, but we found that isn’t the case,” he said. “Researchers need to focus on other factors, such as family resources, which seem to have a real impact.”

The Ohio State University

So why do many cultures have womenhood and manhood training threshold rituals?

Pardon my french, but i think that's horseshit. Mothers have a special role to play in the first years of life, especially through breastfeeding. But even then, there's little a mother can do that a father can't. Children basically have one system for determining who is a parent. Who feeds them. You feed a child, change it's diaper, hold it when it screams...it will form a bond with you. Male, female, biological parent or not. Which is why it's complete horseshit to suppose that homosexual families somehow can't take care of kids properly.

Parenting is about what you do, not who you are or what's between your legs.

That was a short week. :|

OMG! adysav took something i said, and blew it way out of proportion, shocking.

I am not mantus, and i do not speak for him. I will agree that that statement, while seemingly plausible, lacks evidence. Anyways, would you trust me if i attempted to bolster my argument with, "My friend just completed a study on gay marriage and found that it is just like hetero marriage except for the genitalia of those involved."? If so, then cheers, because my friend just happened to complete such a study. ;)


Yes, humans are clearly predisposed to take care of their young. You have no basis to claim that women are naturally better parents than men. None. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooone.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall.
All you can say is that women are different than men, and hope that everybody else makes the cognitive leap that you did by assuming that women are better parents than men.

How is that even measurable? It's not as if the concept of "good parent" is a definitive one. Maybe you could start be defining what it means to be a good parent, and then making an argument as to why men are less capable of fulfilling those criteria.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never argued against incest. I could care less about the actions of consenting adults, related or not. How many times to i have to make that clear? As for the opinions of the people where you live, did you conduct a poll? Or are you just assuming? It doesn't matter. What you're immediate area thinks is irrelevant to anything i care about. I know at least two fathers in my immediate circle of friends who make much better parents than the women they had children with. This is probably completely irrelevant to you. While that may not mean shit in the context of this internet discussion, you can't pretend that there are many fathers who are better parents than many mothers.

You can't prove it, and that's fine. Your problem is that you can't back up your statement with any kind of logic that doesn't involve some sort of miraculous cognitive jump from point a to point b. Men and women are different, no shit. It does not automatically follow that either is particularly more inclined to effective child rearing.

I'm sorry if you feel like you're being unfairly asked to back up your assertions with some sort of coherent logic, but that is part of the process of arguing. You make a statement as to the nature of reality, and then you back it up with logical statments.






All i can say is that OSC should stick to writing sci-fi. He assumes that tradition is valid simply because it exists. He assumes that humans are incapable of defining their relationships in terms other than those they learned form their parents. He spends a long time talking about the effects of divorce on children, which is completely irrelevant. He assumes that people can't act morally without the force of society's expectations weighing down on them. He claims that monogamy is definitively the most effective foundation for a civilization based on haphazard logic. He forgets that reproduction isn't that crucial to the marrying habits of society any more, we can choose when to have children. He seems to think that only men would benefit from monogamy. He sees at the root of every problem someone on the left.

I guess in short i think osc is full of shit.

I'm still away, but I have to find something to do while my girlfriend is out.
If you want to lie to bolster an inconsequential argument with people you don't know, that's up to you.
It seems odd then that women come out best in 90% of custody cases. Why do the courts not find it obvious that men and women are equally capable.
If determining the better parent was not measurable, I imagine a lot of these cases would come to a stalemate.

A poll for www.actionforhealthykids.org resulted in 66% of people believing women are better parents.

I find it hard to believe that you're serious with this one. Courts are hardly the bastions of determining which sex is better at what. Particularly in your case, you're claiming that divorce cases in the United States will give us valuable information about the nature of men and women. I'm sure you know the flaw in your argument here, do you really want us to tell you how ridiculous this one is?

When I was talking about how society's beliefs about things affects policy, you argued in a tangential response that you can't determine if something is true or not based on society's beliefs. Now, you're doing just that. This is one of the reasons that you are getting a lot of responses about your inconsistency - you're being very inconsistent.

66% of people think there's green cheese on the moon. So? 2/3rds of people can believe anything, and it changes nothing.

If someone tells you every day of you life: "Men ALWAYS wash dishes. It's a manly thing to do."

Do you think that you'd wash dishes? Natural advantage or not...you're ignoring a huge component of the debate, that gender roles are affected by our cultural understanding. There is much that has nothing to do with "natrual" but everything to do with how you were raised, the culture around you, and the values of that culture.

It's been pointed out that measuring which sex would be a better parent is very difficult. Given the lack of actual evidence to the contrary and the status of a legal ruling, it seems reasonable.

That's my point, noone else can see their inconsistencies. If someone else states that most people believe one thing, then great, it must be so. If I state that most people believe something else, I'm being inconsistent and my argument is flawed. Every statement I make must be backed up, citing sources and such, but someone else can get away with 'most people say so'.
Which is it to be?

I wash the dishes, I don't think evolution really took that one into account to be honest.
Yes in the main part gender roles are affected by our history and traditions and the desire of men to beat women into subserviency. Men can cook and women can drive, but each has an inherent advantage over the other when it comes to certain things.

No, we were talking about two different things. I was talking about public opinion towards something, not whether there was some sort of factual basis for that opinion. You're changing the subject by responding tangentially, so let's try this again:

You are saying that society believes something so it is true because decisions are made upon those beliefs.

I was saying that society believes something so if you want change to occur regarding that belief it is incombent upon the person to provide very convincing evidence to change that belief.

These are not the same things at all.

Now, for this:

Why? Other than, "because you said so". I happen to see quite a few problems with our court systems due to the ability of judges and juries to make decisions based on stereotypes, biases, and prejudices - not to mention that the punishments/settlements tend to be very arbitrary in their terms.

There are serious problems with using divorce cases as a study into natural predisposition of humans. First, divorce cases are instances of failures of things working out between two adults, it has nothing to do with what makes for the best parenting for kids. Often the arrangements are made that the father has to pay child support and the woman keeps the children because the male earns more money and can support the child financially, and the woman can spend more time with the child. Does that have anything do with a nature predisposition?

I could keep going, but I have to go teach a few classes. I'm sure that there will be more to respond to eventually, and if necessary I will go into further depth into why your process of determining whether women or men are better parents is flawed.

To which you offer absolutly no proof relevant to this debate. Pardon my extreme disbelief that this in any way shape or form has any bearing on the integrity of queer families. When the leading organizations of medical, pyschological and social work all agree that queer families are the equal of hetero families (1)...then why the in the world are we supposed to take your opinion as fact?

1. http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=17907

Are you actually trying to claim that a person's genitialia has more to say about how well they can raise a child than who they actually are? Admit it, you're completely full of shit.

Well, if a lot of people think it true, than it must be true, right?

In essence you're agreeing with me but you don't realise.
Firstly, the survey was not connected to my piece on court rulings, what people believe is what people believe and nothing more.

Secondly, custody suits are determined on a case by case basis and not by some popular statistical formula. The case is evaluated to determine who the child will be better off with. The people who make up the judicial system are educated people who, due to the nature of their work, have to be less prejudiced than most people. Therefore the outcome is more likely to reflect the truth about those cases than you sitting there spouting off that either sex parent is equally capable.

Thirdly, in the second part of that quote you say in order for change to occur based on their belief, they should provide very convincing evidence.

The status quo is that women are regarded as better parents by the relevant authorities. You believe that men are equally good parents but offer no convincing evidence to that effect.

This is interesting. You seem to be reverting to traditional gender roles about working in order to defend a case about gender roles in parenting.
Is this a valid defence of the position? Surely when each individual case is determined, the outcome should reflect who is the better parent. What you are saying may well apply when the case is resolved amicably between the parents. For the remaining cases see the following passages:
---
3. The focus of the evaluation is on parenting capacity, the psychological and developmental needs of the child, and the resulting fit.

In considering psychological factors affecting the best interests of the child, the psychologist focuses on the parenting capacity of the prospective custodians in conjunction with the psychological and developmental needs of each involved child. This involves (a) an assessment of the adults' capacities for parenting, including whatever knowledge, attributes, skills, and abilities, or lack thereof, are present; (b) an assessment of the psychological functioning and developmental needs of each child and of the wishes of each child where appropriate; and (c) an assessment of the functional ability of each parent to meet these needs, including an evaluation of the interaction between each adult and child.
---
6. The psychologist is aware of personal and societal biases and engages in nondiscriminatory practice.

The psychologist engaging in child custody evaluations is aware of how biases regarding age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, culture, and socioeconomic status may interfere with an objective evaluation and recommendations. The psychologist recognizes and strives to overcome any such biases or withdraws from the evaluation.

quoted verbatim from APA Guidelines for Child Custody

showing a case where bias has clearly ruled our legal system...and then hold it up as proof that the bias is fact? i don't think that works.

This is getting hopeless. What you are discussing has nothing to do with nature, it has everything to do with society. I know what the difference is and I have been consistent in qualifying it. You haven't, for instance, you have just said: "The people who make up the judicial system are educated people who, due to the nature of their work, have to be less prejudiced than most people." These people are not scientists, anthropologists, or sociologists. They are not experts in the nature of humanity, and they aren't authorities on this manner. This is a flaw in argumentative logic. When citing authorities, they need to be relevent to the subject matter.

I don't know. I'd probably agree that most judges are less prejudiced than most people; however, I believe most people are pretty darn predjudiced. MartinGuerre's point is interesting, and, given the information we have before us, I don't know if it's possible to say whether the courts give custody to women from bias or b/c it's best for the child. Perhaps it's both -- because society believes that the mother is more important, it's easier for the child to be with her. And, Adysav, you do realize that just because the guidelines enjoin lack of bias, doesn't mean that there will in fact be lack of bias. Note also that the guidelines are for psychologists, not judges. They manifestly do not support your position that women are better parents, and they do not support your contention that judges are fully impartial.

Perhaps the judges have access to some sort of top-secret scientific studies whose results once-and-for-all-time conclusively prove that all men are shitty parents. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Or, to put it less assholey, what do these judges know that we don't and where did they learn it? My bet's on nothing and nowhere.

This borders on the absurd. "A good way of determining," eh? If everyone were homosexual, the world would end! If everyone decided not to go to work anymore, the world would end! If everyone drove a hummer, the strain of greenhouse gases and crude oil usage would break the ozone and the economy! If everyone decided that parenting wasn't for them (because hey, it's a free country), we would die out! Hey, let's make procriation compulsory!

Debating whether it's morally acceptable to be gay is quite passé. (In fact, morality itself is philosophically untenenable.) People are different, get over it. I hardly think gay couples cause you any harm--and, well, if you sit up late at night angsting over their activities, I'd say its your problem, not theirs.

As for gay marriage, it's a smoke and mirrors trick to divert the electorate from the real issues: universal health care, Enron-esque robberbaroning, the privatization of the military, &c.

Cheers!

This would make sense if it was decided by the judge. But it isn't. A court appointed psychologist will decide who the better parent is, which is why I quoted from the American Psychological Association.

Ah, yes, the APA. The people who, not too long ago, thought that lobotomy was an acceptable cure for depression.

Would you believe the bloke that invented the lobotomy got a Nobel prize for his efforts. Oddly enough people still have brain surgery for psychiatric conditions.

From the guidelines the APA seem to run a reasonable operation as regards child custody, and not one mention of lobotomy :)
I suppose you want me to concede that a child custody specialist can't possibly be an expert because 60 years ago someone in a related profession decided lobotomies were a good idea.

This is all irrelevant. Being psychopathic in any way merely means that you have varied signficiantly from what is considered normal. Psychology is a social science that is based primarily on social norms and functioning within the context of society, rather than a science of the innate nature of humanity. Psychology is helpful for many reasons, but it is so contextualized. Psychology can tell you how human behavior and affect can be changed, let us know what "normal" is and isn't, and some of the chemical reactions that occur that can be altered with drugs.

For all the psychology is, I don't think that in this instance it is indicative of what you're saying that it is indicative of.

I think if there conclusive evidence supporting the idea that woman are better parents than men to any significant degree we would actually have a study to point to, rather than being forced to infer something indirectly from child custody cases where we have no knowledge of the actual details. Don't you think?

Or do you think that the knowledge of these child psychologist as to the superiority of the female specties in the area of child rearing is being actively suppressed?

I believe the question was, "Is homosexuality philosophically wrong?"

The answer is, as this thread has demonstrated: What kind of philosophy do you believe in?

wilbjammin & co, since you don't have any more decent criticisms of my argument perhaps you could share the treasure trove of evidence that disproves me.

What argument? You make a few generalizations backed up by questionable figures of authority. These are not the basis for "argument".