adysav

Hey, I admit I've trying to argue something that's a bit thin on the ground for professionals, nevermind the layman. It seems the only people who are interested in researching this point are those who are adamantly for or against it.

I suppose I should concede that there is very little that is definite in this case, but I still hold that each sex has inherent skills which shouldn't simply be ignored.

Yeah, like how Chechen terrorists are representative of all Muslims.
Feminists aren't just women, they're walking contradictions.
"Hey women should be treated equally to men, but all men are bastards"

I think I must have been born with this skill

thefictionweliv

In the name of progress essentially the family unit has been destroyed. Over time Women have become more career minded however Men can still not be accepted as fathers or the emotional backbone of a family. It seems like family alone is no longer suitable to satisfy the desires of societies, it would mean nothing if the newest SUV with chrome rims wasn't in the driveway, so in the name of possesion the children become more distant as both parents are at work, less time is spent togethor as they drift towards the inevitable divorce that is so common now.
So if the number of 2 income houses increases so does the jobs market for single and one income houses. I mean what has really happened in the name of progress? I agree that there should be equality but it has to go both ways. So why have a guy be a stay at home guy? This could never happen cause the guy has to pay for the first date. If there is to be quality then every gender based expectation needs to be dropped.

anti fishstick

Feminists aren't terrorists. To even compare them as such is absurd. You can't just paint feminists with one brush. Just like people, they are actually quite different from each other. It's all in how you look at it... Not all feminists are radical feminists. There is no one platform for feminism that says what you're saying. It's much broader than that.

First of all, not all feminists are women. And not all feminists believe that "all men are bastards". You must be referring to the Dworkian types who have had *personal negative experiences* with men and use it as part of their agenda. While I don't believe that crossing personal experiences with political agenda and making it an emotional case rather than a logical case using facts is a good thing, it is out there and making an impression on people like you. But, this is nothing like feminism in its true identity. There is nothing in the definition of feminism that says, "belief in the hatred of men".

As wilbjammin points out, your views on this subject are directly related to society around you. It has nothing to do with you being an expert, or having been born with some sort of "skill". It sounds like more bias to me.

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~Anais Nin

adysav

May God forgive me for sweeping generalisations and the use of sarcasm.

tecoyah

As you are obviously omnipotent (at least in your mind) You may forgive yourself.

Unless that is to much of a generalization, in its use of sarcasm.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

adysav

That doesn't mean I'm the only god.

tecoyah

................

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

adysav

We have a kind of time share thing. I get Sundays and Wednesdays.

thefictionweliv

Hera is nuisance ain't she?

adysav

Now there's one family that you don't want involved in this.

livingfossil

Feminists do not hate men. Claiming that they do is like claiming all muslims terrorists, which you seem to be against here. Odd.

__________________
Never anything witty.

portereight

I suppose all the documented evidence of homosexuality among the higher orders of animals (dolphin, chimpanzee, bovine, avian, whale, pig, gorilla, elephant, etc) both in captivity and in the wild is all either a creation of the "gay agenda" branch of the scientific establishment or the result of social conditioning brought on by observing their gay observers.

A second observation... Gay marriage is legal here now (Nova Scotia) and there has been no outcry, no breakdown of the family, children have not been abandoned in the street by people choosing to go off and live new gay lives. The only issue dividing our province at the moment is whether allowing Sunday shopping will destroy the family.

alansmithee

This topic was being discussed on CSPAN today. One of the panelists said what I thought made the most sense: Attraction to the same sex might be ingrained, but actions are not. There is no reason for governments to sponsor what is a deviant behavior. If someone chooses to have a same-sex relationship, that is a choice. Should they be persecuted-no. But that doesn't mean that they should gain special status. The same rationale applied for allowing gay marriage could be applied to bigamy/polygamy. The only difference is the gays have better P.R.

Suave

It sure is. Sexual orientation alone does not affect people negatively in any aspect of their personality, and I think people should be able to live and fuck as they please.

I will tell you why divorce rates continue to climb as we continue through time; it is because women's rights are being recognized. This is not in the sense that you are describing however, but the fact that in the past, lack of women's rights meant that to fit into the norms put forth for them, they had to get married, and they had to stay married to survive, because their husban was their sole source of income. Now that they're being considered to be more or less equals (I stress this because it depends which dimension of society you want to look at to see who is placed above or below on the heirarchy), they have the financial ability to get a divorce. They are also more able to be equal in marital relationships, and therefore will say or do things that may cause the husband to want a divorce more frequently as well.

Gender-based expectations are slowly being transformed (not dropped) to better fit a society of financial and legal equality for both sexes. There are stay-at-home dads, and there are stay-at-home moms. The primary gender expectations in economy and law, and the whole "guy paying for the first date" thing are expectations of individuals and small groups; not of society as a whole.

filtherton

Well, if the government was going to stop sponsoring deviant behavior, it would have to stop recognizing successful marriages entirely. A divorce rate of over 50% means that participating in a succesful marriage is a deviant act.

wilbjammin

What stands out to me is the idea that marriage is "government sponsored" and that gay <i>marriage</i> is a behavior. First, the rights gained from marriage for homosexual couples typically aren't viewed as being "government sponsored" marriages. They are consenting adults in a contractual relationship with each other... and, in some cases, this is done in "the eyes of God" (but not always). Second, the differences in behavior from being in a marriage and not being in a marriage to committed couples is very small... whether or not <i>you</i> consider it to be deviant doesn't change anything. How is it deviant if all kinds of people get married everyday? Certainly, there should be some <i>compelling</i> reason to say that adults aren't allowed or capable of making choices to be like other members of society.

The "special status" gained by allowing gays to get married is marriage tax status, the ability to share insurance policies, make visits in hospitals when someone gets sick, and to handle funerals in a reasonable way as a survivor. These are fundamentally rights that people who care for each other that are in committed relationships should be able to have.

I can understand people objecting to it as being a traditional institution sactioned by the church, but not from a rights perspective.

__________________
Innominate.

alansmithee

By that defenition, the golden rule and telling the truth are deviant behaviors.
And besides, who can tell if a marriage is successful? Success is relative.

alansmithee

All but the tax status can be gained through contractual agreements, without forcing corporations who may disagree with homosexuality to subsidize it through sharing of benefits. And if you take out religion, the basis for marriage is financial, and has nothing to do with caring for each other or being in a committed relationship. Marriage is a way to join two families through blood, or in the industrial age, to give an opportunity for people to support and raise their children. Love, being generally temporary, is a recent component into marriage and has no basis in a logical discussion of the benefits to society for allowing gay marriage.

filtherton

So they are. I guess defining a certain behavior as deviant as a means to denounce said behavior is a little silly then.

I'm defining success as not ending in a divorce. Let me know what your definition of a succesful marriage is.

adysav

My god, the thread... it's ALIVE.
Playing devils advocate here, but when was the last time you heard of someone getting married solely to join two families?

adysav

A behaviour doesn't need defining as to whether it is deviant or not. Deviant is being at odds with societal norms.
As a side note, I hardly believe telling the truth is in the minority, as most of the time you are talking about something, you're telling the truth without thinking about it being the truth.

Would you define a successful marriage as one that drags on despite both participants desperately wanting out of it?

alansmithee

I wasn't using the deviant tag to denounce homosexuality. I was stating that homosexual behavior is out of the mainstream, and does not deserve special status over other non-mainstream behavior patterns.

alansmithee

It hasn't happened in America to my knowledge in a long time, but I was trying to put a historical perspective on marriage. It is still common to arrange marriages in many places around the world, however.

adysav

Yeah I know people who have had arranged marriages in Pakistan, but we aren't really talking about Pakistan.
edit: occassionally royal families in europe still do it

filtherton

I was pointing out that succesful marriages are out of the mainstream, and so should not deserve special status over things that are practiced by the majority of americans.


I don't understand. Are you saying that behavior shouldn't be able to be defined as deviant?

Well, i think anyone who wants to protect the traditional (read religious) definition of marriage would say that any marriage ending in divorce is unsuccessful.

I think there is a difference between a successful relationship and a successful marriage.

adysav

I'm saying a behaviour isn't defined as deviant at all (by people). It either is or isn't deviant based on the currents norms within a society.
Well I'm not protecting the religious definition.

filtherton

A current norm in american society is that marriage is disposable.

Not to be brisk, but i'm more concerned with alansmithee's opinion on this than yours.

alansmithee

I would disagree with that. Most people do not enter into marriage thinking it is disposable, they believe it will be permanent.

As for the definition of a sucessful marriage, I stated before it is relative. Since there is no objective definiton, I believe using that as a metric for government support is wrong. And as for religious tradition, I personally try to leave religion out of debates because it is not something that can be proven or disputed with logic and reason. Therefore, I don't think that the traditional religious basis of a sucessful marriage could be used to set up a standard for deviant behavior.

And honestly, with the rising divorce rate, I personally have started believing that marriage should be harder to attain. I think marriage (and the governmental, legal, and financial benefits relating to it) should be limited to a man and women who are planning to have children. I believe this would limit greatly many societal ills, but that is really off-topic.

But having those beliefs, I don't think homosexuals should be allowed marriage or civil unions. Society gains nothing out of it, and there is no inherent right to marriage. I have no problem with the religious marriages (which are being performed) but I don't favor any special status. Many of the same benefits which have no outside cost to businesses or the government can be attained if desired by contractual agreements between two people (namely inheritance, hospital visits, and child custody).

wilbjammin

from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

<i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the <b>pursuit of happiness</b></i>.

Our society is built upon the belief that individuals are allowed to persue happiness. This is highly ingrained in the American consciousness. The majority of Americans believe that the ability to make what you want out of life is important to the American dream. The deprivation of allowing people to get married that love each other, are committed, and are upstanding citizens flies right in the face of the values set forth by our founding fathers. We believe that society is better off when individuals are their happiest.

__________________
Innominate.

alansmithee

You show me a lawyer citing the Declaration of Independence as legal precedent, and i'll show you a lawyer about to lose their case. Notice how none of that language was put in the Constitution, which is what law is based on.

adysav

Aww, and I thought you loved me.

filtherton

Whether they think it or not, marriage is disposable. That is what divorce is. It is a means of disposing of an unwanted marriage. Your "relative" definition for a successful marriage is maybe commendable, but it completely dodges the issue. Marriage is a commitment, divorce is a failed commitment and a failed marriage. Success can be relative, but not when we have clearly defined goals.

You can't claim that society gains nothing out of it because that statement by itself means nothing. It is a broad statement that is impossible to support credibly.

Equality is not special status. If you truly didn't favor special status you would be against marriage benefits for anyone, not just the homosexuals.

I think the idea that we must protect business from having to provide benefits to gay people is silly. Businesses should not be free to discriminate.

filtherton

I just love your doggy style.

thefictionweliv

They sure as hell need to take the whole forever and eternity shpeel out of wedding vows,
"to have and to hold in health and monetary posperity until I find you in bed with my best friend or you run into me with the girl at the office sometime, lose my job, or otherwise sometime in the next 5 years." "I do."

Suave

You just opened yourself a can of worms right there buddy. :P
The flaw of the statistical definition of deviance, which you just stated, is that it labels everyone as deviant, and in multiple different ways. It is actually one of the worst definitions of deviant available.

A better definition, although likely not the best, is that deviance is activity that is labelled as such, and the viewpoint that said activity is deviant is shared by "society", society being the majority of the people within a demographic region.

You made a mistake bringing that up in a thread with someone who just happens to be both semantically inclined, and of high interest in the field of deviance.

filtherton

No, i just demonstrated, with your help, that the word deviance, as it is often used in the "anything i don't like is deviant" context, is completely meaningless. Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, being based on how people define normal, as opposed to what normal actually is. Using your definition devalues rational argument in favor of the whims of the majority.

Besides, everyone is deviant. I am a deviant. You are a deviant. It's not so bad not being a robot, is it?

Suave

Like I said, it's not the best definition, but it came to mind, and it's a damn sight better than the statistical definition. Anyways, depending which definition you use (and there are some that are more widely-used, speaking in academic circles), deviance can mean a lot of things. Despite this, just because behaviour is weird to you, it doesn't make it deviant. So you don't have to be a robot to be a non-deviant (although I'd classify myself as deviant with most definitions), just good at following rules.

Also, the robot thing is, again, dependent on who you talk to. There are a number of people who consider human beings to be simply biological robots.

filtherton

I hear you. It's just that so often, especially in arguments against homosexuality, certain words are used by people who haven't thought about the words enough to know that they aren't really saying what they think they are saying.

Suave

True dat. Like I said, I'm semantically-inclined (forgot to mention that I enjoy being facetious, dastardly, and just plain annoying), so it was purely in that regard that I had to disagree.

I know what you mean by people just throwing around words or "facts" that are really just completely subjective, and using them to fuel an argument. Makes mah blood boil.

alansmithee

Businesses discriminate daily. It's called the hiring process. It's when people are allowed to work for a company based on behaviors they may or may not have taken in the past. If I take part in behaviour that the owners of a company does not approve of, they should not be forced to subsidize it.