What's Wrong With Civil Unions?

[ancap]

Not that you were speaking directly to me, but I'll try to take your thoughts point by point Rick...

"Has anyone considered that when we change people's attitudes toward marriage, we change people's attitude toward the traditional family."

You would have to do a better job examining why this would be such a bad thing. Throughout our recent history, there has been some very prevalent physical and mental abuse in the "traditional family". However, it has become less intense and obvious nowadays.

"Despite being far and away the largest producer of health and wealth known in the history of man, we have been chipping away at the traditional family for the last 4 decades."

Agreed on our country producing vast amounts of wealth and amazing advances in healthcare. However, I'm not sure how you developed this causal link between wealth and the traditional family. I was pretty sure these things were a very well documented result in the explosion of free enterprise.

"Well, it has produced more social decay than anything we have ever seen. Every major social indicator shows that society decays in direct proportion to the decline of the traditional family."

Please give this social decay a name. Bring it out of the darkness for us. Please don't tell me marijuana use is among these social decays! You've also again made the causal leap from this unnamed social decay to the decline in the embrace of your "traditional values."

"Regardless, we all need to understand that marriage is not a right. You need a license to get married."

This doesn't work with me. I don't believe the government gives us our rights.

"If we apply some of the logic posted above, don't we also have to allow brothers and sisters to wed? What if a man wants to take 7 wives? What if a girl wants to marry her father or her cat?"

I say go for it! I'm all for voluntary social contracts. My personal preferences have no weight here because I choose not to enforce my personal preferences on others through the power of the state.

"We restrict the use of alcohol and other things by people who are under 21. Placing restrictions on who can marry is no different."

Restricting a child from drinking a poison is different from restricting an adult from exercising their free will and choice.

"Besides, civil unions do give Gays all the same rights, they just do it without asking others to change the definition of marriage."

So, if gay people have civil unions, the social fabric isn't harmed, but if they call it a different name (marriage), BOY that's a completely different story!

"The law does in fact apply equally to everyone with regard to marriage. Neither gay nor straight people can marry someone of the same sex, or a sibling, or a parent, or a dog, or more than one person."

Prohibition of marijuana applies equally to all people. It's still wrong.

 

[ancap]

Rick, I have a few thoughts for Dennis Prager too, so send this along when you get a chance...

"There are enormous differences between men and women"

Sure, but there are no differences between them when it applies to the application of morality. You can also find some physiological differences between black people and white people too. That does not and should not create a double moral standard. You are arguing here against racial descrimination, but pointing out differences in human beings only puts you on a slippery slope of justifying reasons to descriminate.

"Opposition to marrying people of the same sex is the moral norm."

UGH! Really? What a terrible flimsy argument! Come on, you can do better than that Dennis! Slavery was the moral norm until 150 years ago! It's even a moral norm in the fucking bible!!! What does that prove?

"Those that advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral."

My head is spinning Dennis! So if I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, then I ipso facto call EVERY SINGLE LAST religious or secular tradition immoral????? Your head must hurt from mentally bending over backwards on this one!

"They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest jewish, christian, and humanist thinkers who ever lived."

Saying, "It must be true because a smart person said it was true" is NOT an argument. Only unintelligent people rely on these types of assertions.

"It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that precedes us."

Again, if people did it in the past, it must be right. Dumb. Lazy. Argument.

 

[smoker toker]

^ Agreed... +rep

 

[Leothwyn]

I'm with smoker toker - great posts ancap.

 

[NorthwestBuds]

i would like to be able to use the ladies restroom.

if a gay man can stand next to me and pee then why can't i pee next to suzy?

i want equal restrooms for all.

You kill me!

 

[Rob Roy]

If people concerned themselves with themselves and quit trying to impose their morality via laws on others I'd be pretty happy. When we think we know what is best for others and use the force of government to "make" our wishes come true we open the door to somebody else imposing their morality on us.

 

[doobnVA]

If people concerned themselves with themselves and quit trying to impose their morality via laws on others I'd be pretty happy. When we think we know what is best for others and use the force of government to "make" our wishes come true we open the door to somebody else imposing their morality on us.

Here's something I can agree with you on, RobRoy. If every jurisdiction were to erase all "crimes of moral turpitude", I would be quite happy. We all know people have different moral values, and it's absurd to try to regulate moral values by way of law. You simply cannot force everyone to adhere to the same set of values, and punish those who do not agree with those values. Public intoxication and public swearing are two good examples of "crimes of moral turpitude" that ought to be wiped from the face of the earth as they serve no purpose but to enforce a rigid set of moral values and not to protect persons or property.

That being said, I am perfectly fine with laws that define crimes against persons and property - as long as those laws are justified by a desire to actually reduce harm to people and property and not to impose someone else's moral values upon me.

 

[RickWhite]

Well Rick, I don't think there will ever be a way to get you to see things differently than the way you see them because from what I've read it seems like you've been brought up to believe that homosexuality in general is immoral. I'm not criticizing you here. I'm just saying that's what it seems to me from what I've read in this thread and the "is gay marriage really that big'o'deal?" thread. And I guess that's okay to have that opinion.

My only question is, aside from what the Bible, church, and your parents have taught you, have you ever considered the issue from the other side? Do YOU really know what homosexuals are feeling? Do you know anything about what any of them have ever gone through in their lives? Until recently, most of them were within inches of their own lives because heterosexuals have abused and harassed them to the breaking point. I'm glad that God has given us the ability to love and be able to control our populations. Can you imagine how long ago we would have killed each other off had we only had a bunch of heterosexuals running around and making babies all the time? We'd be way more overpopulated than China or India. People would be dying off just from starvation and I think homosexuals and heterosexuals would be dying about the same rate. That's just survival of the fittest, not survival of the one's who like to put their dicks in pussy.

I hope one day you'll be able to see God's infinite wisdom with all of his creative design to understand that everyone deserves an equal chance because we're all created by Him. His words are sacred but even we know those words have been manipulated and even omitted to meet the needs of those trying to use it as a tool of "morality". Not everyone's idea of morality is the same. The "golden rule" and the 10 commandments are really just basic living ideals and standards. And that's mainly what we as humans should be trying to follow, not all the stuff that can be misinterpreted.

Your assumptions are 100% incorrect. I am not Christian, not religious and was not brought up to think about homosexuality at all because it wasn't discussed.

I'm not going to respond specifically because it is clear to me that you are not understanding my point.

I fully back the notion of Gays having all the same rights as everyone else. But, I also support the ideal of the traditional family as the single best environment in which to raise a child. I don't see why that is so complex and I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[RickWhite]

Here's something I can agree with you on, RobRoy. If every jurisdiction were to erase all "crimes of moral turpitude", I would be quite happy. We all know people have different moral values, and it's absurd to try to regulate moral values by way of law. You simply cannot force everyone to adhere to the same set of values, and punish those who do not agree with those values. Public intoxication and public swearing are two good examples of "crimes of moral turpitude" that ought to be wiped from the face of the earth as they serve no purpose but to enforce a rigid set of moral values and not to protect persons or property.

That being said, I am perfectly fine with laws that define crimes against persons and property - as long as those laws are justified by a desire to actually reduce harm to people and property and not to impose someone else's moral values upon me.

This coming from a guy who wants to use the power of Government to steal money from one group of people and redistribute it to another because HE thinks doing so is right.

Amazing.

 

[ancap]

This coming from a guy who wants to use the power of Government to steal money from one group of people and redistribute it to another because HE thinks doing so is right.

Amazing.

Sweet! So you must be an anarchist/voluntarist like me!

 

[doobnVA]

So it's okay to redistribute wealth when it's the BANKS doing it, but not okay when it's the government?

How does that make any sense?

If the government didn't "steal" that money, would we have roads? electricity? water? schools? emergency responders? Do you really think people would donate money and labor to these things to make them happen if the government wasn't "forcing" them to?

Is promoting the general health and welfare of the people a BAD thing all of a sudden?

 

[doobnVA]

Sweet! So you must be an anarchist/voluntarist like me!

No, he's a corporatist/elitist.

The poor should remain poor because it makes HIM wealthy.

 

[ancap]

So it's okay to redistribute wealth when it's the BANKS doing it, but not okay when it's the government?

How does that make any sense?

If the government didn't "steal" that money, would we have roads? electricity? water? schools? emergency responders? Do you really think people would donate money and labor to these things to make them happen if the government wasn't "forcing" them to?

Is promoting the general health and welfare of the people a BAD thing all of a sudden?

Do you think that there is a possibility that a better way exists to manage these essential social services in the absense of a centralized government that uses violent force to extract its revenue? If another way was possible that did not necessitate violence, do you think it would be worth exploring? Its cool if you haven't really given that much thought. Most people haven't. Just wondering...

 

[fdd2blk]

Your assumptions are 100% incorrect. I am not Christian, not religious and was not brought up to think about homosexuality at all because it wasn't discussed.

I'm not going to respond specifically because it is clear to me that you are not understanding my point.

I fully back the notion of Gays having all the same rights as everyone else. But, I also support the ideal of the traditional family as the single best environment in which to raise a child. I don't see why that is so complex and I don't know what else to tell you.

i've been saying pretty much the same thing for over a year now. i just get called a bigot.

 

[fdd2blk]

No, he's a corporatist/elitist.

The poor should remain poor because it makes HIM wealthy.

the poor should get a fucking job.

 

[ancap]

I fully back the notion of Gays having all the same rights as everyone else. But, I also support the ideal of the traditional family as the single best environment in which to raise a child. I don't see why that is so complex and I don't know what else to tell you.

It is the "but" in your sentence that I think hints at the problem. There is nothing wrong with upholding and advocating for ALL the values that are important to you. We all should do that. Just pretty please don't use the government to legislate your values!

Man, there are so many children in need of a loving home. It seems like you would rather them be raised in a transitional and in some cases broken foster care system where they have NO mother or father. It seems like you sorta make up these gay parenting disadvantages in your head and then present them as fact.

Here's why I believe what I believe, backed by sources...

1. According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.

2. The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents".

3. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.

All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.

See Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (197, Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L.

 

[fdd2blk]

It is the "but" in your sentence that I think hints at the problem. There is nothing wrong with upholding and advocating for ALL the values that are important to you. We all should do that. Just pretty please don't use the government to legislate your values!

Man, there are so many children in need of a loving home. It seems like you would rather them be raised in a transitional and in some cases broken foster care system where they have NO mother or father. It seems like you sorta make up these gay parenting disadvantages in your head and then present them as fact.

Here's why I believe what I believe, backed by sources...

1. According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.

2. The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents".

3. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.

All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.

aren't the gays trying to use the government? i mean, we ARE voting on it.

 

[ancap]

aren't the gays trying to use the government? i mean, we ARE voting on it.

Good point, but allowing legal same sex marriage does not descriminate against anyone, so using the government to vote their freedom back is a perfectly valid option and does not impose anything on any other party. Prohibitionists could say that allowing legal pot smoking is an affront to their values, but that would be false. It would only be an affront to their values if we used the government to force everyone to smoke pot... which may not be so bad now that I think about it.

If gays have an ethical freedom to enter into a voluntary social contract like everyone else, then legislating that right away from them is using the government to initiate force on those people to enforce the will of the immoral majority.

 

[fdd2blk]

Good point, but allowing legal same sex marriage does not descriminate against anyone, so using the government to vote their freedom back is a perfectly valid option and does not impose anything on any other party.

If gays have an ethical freedom to enter into a voluntary social contract like everyone else, then legislating that right away from them is using the government to initiate force on those people to enforce the will of the immoral majority.

allowing legal same sex marriage discriminates against gays, doesn't it?

 

[ancap]

allowing legal same sex marriage discriminates against gays, doesn't it?

Do you mean descriminates against heterosexuals or those who are against gay marriage? I don't understand how it would decriminate against gays.