What's Wrong With Civil Unions?

[MexicanWarlord420]

Same sex marriage will destroy the great values of this country founded by the baby jesus hurr durr.

 

[fdd2blk]

[youtube]5A0-u85aAYg[/youtube]

 

[doobnVA]

Same sex marriages cause cancer.

Great! More reasons for the insurance companies to deny coverage.

insurance salesman: "marital status please"

gay person: "same sex"

insurance salesman "I'm sorry, that's a pre-existing condition" (stamps DENIED on the application)

 

[doobnVA]

Same sex marriage will destroy the great values of this country founded by the baby jesus hurr durr.

you've got to admit, his little footprint on the Constitution is just TOO CUTE!

 

[ancap]

Do you think "someone" would build and maintain those roads, and NOT charge you to drive on them?

No, they would charge me to drive on them.

Would you rather leave "social services" to a FOR PROFIT corporate entity?

Yes.

Have you heard the stories of the for profit juvenile detention centers that are essentially recruiting children from family courts (by bribing judges) and then subjecting them to all sorts of cruel and unusual punishments?

I agree that using the power of the government to benefit yourself at the expense of others is evil. This wouldn't happen where there is no government.

Look, there's a law that mandates certain people pay certain levels of taxes. You break those laws, you suffer the consequences.

We once legally bought and sold human beings, and legally raped them and forced them to work for us without pay. Did I mention that was within the law?

yes, if I smoke pot and it's against the law, I fully expect to be taken to jail if I'm caught. If I don't agree with the law, then I do what I can to change it. If I don't want to risk going to jail, then I don't break the law. It's that simple, really.

Why not stand up for your principles and just say kidnapping someone and jailing them for smoking a plant is evil and wrong? You sound like an abused kid that says, "I went outside when I wasn't supposed to, so I deserved to get beaten." You DON'T deserve to be beaten by anyone!

I think you misunderstood my point about charging the police with kidnapping. What I meant was, it's fully within the police's power to arrest you for breaking the law. If you tried to charge them with kidnapping for arresting you, you'd be laughed out of court.

1. There is no such thing as a "police officer." There are only humans who carry guns and dress up in blue clothes. There are no judges. There are only humans that wear black robes and hold a gavel. There is no government. There is only a small aggregation of humans that claim the right to rule you. Police, judges and governments are all concepts that do not exist in reality. You cannot touch a judge, but you can touch a human wearing a black robe. This is important to establish because...

2. Rules of morality must apply equally to all humans in order for those rules to be valid. If it is immoral for one human to murder, then it is immoral for all humans to murder. It cannot be OK for one group of humans to steal money and simultaneously NOT OK for another group of humans to steal money. Your occupation or costume does not change your DNA. You still operate under the same ethical rules as all other humans.

3. If it is immoral for me to hand cuff someone and hold them prisoner, then it is immoral for another person to do it, despite what kind of clothes they are wearing or what kind of job they have. Nobody has the right to initiate force against you. Not even police officers, though I understand they do it anyway.

You're assuming that everyone is willing to take part in this "voluntary" society you dream of. That's not the case.

They don't have to take part. It's voluntary.

We don't live in some utopian society where everyone wants to help out and do their part.

I'm not a communist, if that is what you are suggesting.

No, the government does not use force and coercion to extract people's money.

You mean as long as you do what they say?

They use the LAW, which is well within their constitutional power to do so.

You mean some people made up some rules and wrote it on a piece of paper, and then used that paper to justify taking people's money? I should do that. Sounds like a great business plan. Of course if it's ethical for them to do that, it's also ethical for me as well.

By living in the United States, you are agreeing to abide by the laws of the United States. Nobody is forcing you to stay. There are places you can go where you won't have to pay taxes.

You make it sound like I have options. All countries have governments (people who claim the right to rule over other people in a given territory). If I'm tired of being controlled by a mafia, but every place on earth is controlled by a mafia, Im not actually getting away from the mafia by moving. How about people just stand up and say, "Maybe we shouldn't have a mafia." It also costs money to leave and years to apply and be granted residency in another country. This is not a valid option.

 

[fdd2blk]

[youtube]BTXFf3GAJLs[/youtube]

 

[RickWhite]

Not a magical mitigating effect, just a regular mitigating effect. Surely children who are older and more thoroughly damaged will not benefit as greatly from being put into an adoptive home (gay or straight) than their much younger counterparts, but leaving them in the broken system is not the answer.



You don't need to frame this in such polar extremes. If a gay couple adoption environment is a 7 out of 10 and the foster care environment is a 3 out of 10, then I would see it to the child's advantage to be placed in the former situation. By the way, I'm only conceeding the point that a traditional family environment is better for the sake of argument. I cited quite a few sources besides the APA concerning this issue. You have cited none, though I'm not saying they don't exist.



Again, I've cited sources that back up my claim that children of same sex couples turn out just fine. You have staunchly rejected all my sources. Doing so as quickly as you did leads me to believe that you are unwilling to even examine evidence that contradicts your view. However, I still have not seen evidence of how growing up in a gay home warps a child's development.

There is documented evidence that foster homes pump out abused and neglected children at extremely unacceptable rates. There is no evidence that children of same sex couples are warped at nearly the same rate and intensity, if AT ALL. If anything, I would venture a guess empiracally (yes, I cannot back this up) that adopted children of both same sex and opposite sex couples have a very similar low rate of abuse.



This is only your opinion, but you present it as fact. This is the same type of disaster prediction that the government uses to keep marijuana illegal. Opponents of major social change throughout history always present disaster scenarios. "We can't free the slaves! Our economy would crumble!" or "We can't allow women to vote! They can't handle important decisions coolly and calmly!"

Your predictions of such a social disaster is unfounded.

Putting aside your false characterizations, you are hyper-focusing on a very small ancillary issue. Sure, I can see how foster homes might be no better or maybe even worse than gay home - there is no disagreement here. I would rather have neither and that is the main point.

I remind you, this thread is supposed to answer the question of what is wrong with civil unions.

I have raised the point that redefining marriage has a whole host of legal ramifications and requires forcing others to accept the gay lifestyle into the mainstream. I make the argument that this affects the way people view traditional families. Specifically, it causes people to see traditional man-woman families as less important than they are. And we already have way too much of that which is why we disagree in the first place.

Think about it. Why get married when single parenting is just as good. Why get married when cohabitation is just as good. After all, it doesn't matter what your family structure looks like - the acceptance of gay marriage is proof of this.

If you don't think that this is how children will be taught to think you must be living on another planet.

While I do want equal rights for Gays and for everyone, I do not want to see our attitude toward traditional families eroded any more than it already has been. Redefining marriage will most certainly have this effect.

 

[ancap]

Putting aside your false characterizations, you are hyper-focusing on a very small ancillary issue. Sure, I can see how foster homes might be no better or maybe even worse than gay home - there is no disagreement here. I would rather have neither and that is the main point.

Im not sure what "small ancillary issue" you are referring to, but certainly where to place children who are trapped in an unhealthy and often abusive system is not one of these small ancillary issues. You have not proven that gay parenting harms children, and until you do so, you are presenting nothing more than your preference against gay parenting. Using the power of the state to enforce your preferences is outrageously unethical.

I remind you, this thread is supposed to answer the question of what is wrong with civil unions.

Creating a secondary system for the same type of contract based on a person's sexual orientation is wrong. There is no practical reason why you would wish to do such a thing when it comes to the application of the law. It all narrows down to your personal values (or prejudices) and you have no right to use government force to legislate either. I feel like I'm having to make arguments analogous to opposing the idea of equal but seperate public bathrooms for blacks.

I have raised the point that redefining marriage has a whole host of legal ramifications and requires forcing others to accept the gay lifestyle into the mainstream.

This is patently untrue! Liberty is not force no matter how you slice it! Allowing a behavior or practice (so long as it does not violate your person or property) cannot effect you in ANY WAY besides possibly offending your particular values, and we have a right to offend each other in this country!!!

Should hunting be outlawed because it forces vegans to accept the slaughter of animals into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

Should marijuana use remain illegal because it forces the "family values" voters to accept a "drug lifestyle" into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

Should cussing be made illegal because it "forces" those who are against cussing to accept it into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

This is all nonsense!

You are so concerned with the idea of marriage as a term being "redefined" that you don't seem to realize that it was the original definition of marriage that defined marriage improperly for the public forum. Marriage should be defined in completely secular and equal terms if it is to be a public institution. Your church can define marriage in whatever limiting terms it wants, but when it comes to the law which applies to ALL people, your religious bent must be left at the door. Otherwise, you are simply legislating your exclusionary definition of marriage into the public forum.

I make the argument that this affects the way people view traditional families. Specifically, it causes people to see traditional man-woman families as less important than they are.

So what? Important to who? Traditional families are better? Better for who? For all people in all places at all times in all situations?

Think about it. Why get married when single parenting is just as good.

Is single parenting always worse? Worse for who? For all people in every situation?

Why get married when cohabitation is just as good. After all, it doesn't matter what your family structure looks like - the acceptance of gay marriage is proof of this.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people that protects their mutual interests. Period. End of story. There is no other point from a legal, secular standpoint.

If you don't think that this is how children will be taught to think you must be living on another planet.

What are you so afraid that children will be taught to think? That homosexuality is not a choice, which is supported by virtually all medical and psychological associations? That somehow the child will be convinced to be gay, which there is zero evidence for and in fact evidence to the contrary? What do you fear so badly that you would impose your ideals on other people through the federal government by limiting their choices?

While I do want equal rights for Gays and for everyone, I do not want to see our attitude toward traditional families eroded any more than it already has been.

I fear people who offer the words "I do not want" as the beginning of their ethical justification for imposing limitations and laws on other people through government force. You make my case here when I say that you are simply attempting to legislate your preferences.

MY preference is that you should not teach your children that there is a magical invisible man living in another realm who watches over them and who sent his son to earth by impregnating a young virgin girl because the people on earth were born evil due to a women who ate an apple after being convinced by a talking snake, which of course came before the invisible loving being decided to drown every man, woman and child after he told the animals to board a boat for safety... but yes, possibly my request for marriage to be called marriage for ALL people is just unreasonable. The "faithful" should feel lucky that I find it contemptable to legislate against their crazy ass bullshit fantasies... but this is just my opinion.

 

[Stoney McFried]

Uh...I for one, think of the straight people doing it.I'm also a covert "package gazer".I imagine lots of people naked, straight, bi, whatever.It's not a sexual thing, it's just a weirdo thing.

I think kind of what you stated there is kind of where the anti-gay people get going (I'm not saying you're anti-gay!) Usually when somebody hears that a guy is dating a girl or vice-versa it's no big deal because heterosexuals don't usually take their mind directly to what they are doing with each other behind closed doors. I mean, how many people imagine some guy and girl going at it or getting cunnilingus or fellatio the minute they see them holding hands on the street. But the minute they find out someone is gay they immediately just think about one guy sucking another guys cock or sticking it in his ass or two girls bumping flowers. They don't see them as just another couple that loves each other and cares about each other, they just see them as two people of the same sex going at it sexually.

 

[RickWhite]

A good read on the subject.

Marriage: What Social Science Says and Doesn't Say
by Jennifer A. Marshall
WebMemo #503
Social science data indicate that the intact family—defined as a man and a woman who marry, conceive, and raise their children together—best ensures the current and future welfare of children and society when compared with other common forms of households. As alternative family forms have become more prevalent since the 1960s, social science research and government surveys have indicated an accompanying rise in a number of serious social problems.
Government’s interest in marriage has been based primarily on its interest in the welfare of the next generation. Among the many types of social relationships, marriage has always had a special place in all legal traditions, our own included, because it is the essential foundation of the intact family, and no other family form has been able to provide a commensurate level of social security.
In all other common family and household forms, the risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater, increasing the risk of dependence on state services. A free society requires a critical mass of individuals in stable households who are not dependent on the state. The most stable and secure household, the available research shows, is the intact family. Therefore, the state has an interest in protecting the intact family and we should be cautious about facilitating other forms of household, the effects of which are either deleterious or unknown.
Compared with counterparts in other common household arrangements, adolescents in intact families have better health, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems, data show. By contrast, national surveys reveal that, as a group, children in other family forms studied are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and emotional problems, lower academic achievement, and drug use. These surveys illustrate

• Adolescents in intact families, as a group, are the least likely to feel depressed compared to those with divorced, step-, cohabiting, or single parents; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
• The national average grade-point scores of children in intact families is 2.98, compared to 2.79 for children of cohabiting parents and 2.71 for children living in stepfamilies; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
• The rate of youth incarceration is significantly greater for children raised in single-mother and stepfamily homes than for those raised in intact families, even after controlling for parental income and education; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth)
• Children in non-intact families are three times as likely to have children outside of marriage; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.) and
• Rates of engaging in problem behaviors such as lying, stealing, drunkenness, and violence are sharply higher for children of divorce compared to children in intact families. (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

During the 1990s, a serious public policy debate resulted when emerging social science data showed the consequences of several decades of experimentation with family forms. Out of this increased awareness grew a movement for policy and cultural changes to reinforce and restore marriage in America. Policy decisions—such as welfare reform—were grounded in these data. We have seen some of the fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.

By contrast, the current debate over same-sex marriage is not anchored in sound research, and data on the consequences of children being brought up by same-sex couples remains scarce. Same-sex couples with children constitute a new form of household that has not been carefully studied. Nor has the objective of this policy discussion been clearly defined as the interest of children or the future of the nation’s families.

Same-sex marriage advocates propose that we institutionalize a social experiment in its early stages by elevating it in law to the status of the oldest of institutions: marriage. That experiment is the same-sex coupling and parenting recently taking place around us. To be sure, Americans have become more accepting of other types of sexual experimentation—sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, single parenting—but do not equate them with or see them as a substitute for marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely the proposal before us on the question of same-sex marriage: that we institutionalize in law an experiment about which we have very little knowledge.

The data on the homosexual household is extremely limited. We know relatively little about the long-term effects of homosexual relationships on partners and even less about the children that will be raised in such households. Such an absence of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution of society. Thus we should study the results of the current experiment in homosexual households with children rather than forcing communities at large to accept, by law, same-sex marriage and parenting.

We should also further explore what it is about marriage that sets the intact family apart in the current research . Many would contend that the unique natures and contributions of a male and a female constitute the critical characteristic of marriage, and that the distinctive sexual nature and identity of each parent, along with their number (two rather than one) and relationship status (marriage rather than cohabitation), gives the intact family the exceptional quality it exhibits. This needs to be examined carefully, to determine how having two parents of opposite sexes contributes to the upbringing of a child.

In the meantime, with the policy debate forced by same-sex marriage advocates beyond the conclusions of existent social science research, we must look to the best evidence currently available about family forms and their social impacts. What we know about alternative family forms is a good indicator of what we might expect from this variant.

Modern policymaking should be informed by the realities of available empirical evidence. In time, the data will be forthcoming on this newest form of experimentation, same-sex partnering and parenting, and its effects on homosexual men and women and on those who live with them. In the meantime America’s marriage and family law should stay the course based on what we do know.

 

[RickWhite]

Im not sure what "small ancillary issue" you are referring to, but certainly where to place children who are trapped in an unhealthy and often abusive system is not one of these small ancillary issues. You have not proven that gay parenting harms children, and until you do so, you are presenting nothing more than your preference against gay parenting. Using the power of the state to enforce your preferences is outrageously unethical.



Creating a secondary system for the same type of contract based on a person's sexual orientation is wrong. There is no practical reason why you would wish to do such a thing when it comes to the application of the law. It all narrows down to your personal values (or prejudices) and you have no right to use government force to legislate either. I feel like I'm having to make arguments analogous to opposing the idea of equal but seperate public bathrooms for blacks.



This is patently untrue! Liberty is not force no matter how you slice it! Allowing a behavior or practice (so long as it does not violate your person or property) cannot effect you in ANY WAY besides possibly offending your particular values, and we have a right to offend each other in this country!!!

Should hunting be outlawed because it forces vegans to accept the slaughter of animals into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

Should marijuana use remain illegal because it forces the "family values" voters to accept a "drug lifestyle" into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

Should cussing be made illegal because it "forces" those who are against cussing to accept it into the mainstream via a legal legitimacy?

This is all nonsense!

You are so concerned with the idea of marriage as a term being "redefined" that you don't seem to realize that it was the original definition of marriage that defined marriage improperly for the public forum. Marriage should be defined in completely secular and equal terms if it is to be a public institution. Your church can define marriage in whatever limiting terms it wants, but when it comes to the law which applies to ALL people, your religious bent must be left at the door. Otherwise, you are simply legislating your exclusionary definition of marriage into the public forum.



So what? Important to who? Traditional families are better? Better for who? For all people in all places at all times in all situations?



Is single parenting always worse? Worse for who? For all people in every situation?



Marriage is a legal contract between two people that protects their mutual interests. Period. End of story. There is no other point from a legal, secular standpoint.



What are you so afraid that children will be taught to think? That homosexuality is not a choice, which is supported by virtually all medical and psychological associations? That somehow the child will be convinced to be gay, which there is zero evidence for and in fact evidence to the contrary? What do you fear so badly that you would impose your ideals on other people through the federal government by limiting their choices?



I fear people who offer the words "I do not want" as the beginning of their ethical justification for imposing limitations and laws on other people through government force. You make my case here when I say that you are simply attempting to legislate your preferences.

MY preference is that you should not teach your children that there is a magical invisible man living in another realm who watches over them and who sent his son to earth by impregnating a young virgin girl because the people on earth were born evil due to a women who ate an apple after being convinced by a talking snake, which of course came before the invisible loving being decided to drown every man, woman and child after he told the animals to board a boat for safety... but yes, possibly my request for marriage to be called marriage for ALL people is just unreasonable. The "faithful" should feel lucky that I find it contemptable to legislate against their crazy ass bullshit fantasies... but this is just my opinion.

If you are going to multi-quote every sentence and give a snide remark for each I will put you on my ignore list.

Since you have chosen to argue by verbosity and I can not possible address every idiotic statement you made I will only address one.

Try to comprehend that marriage is not a right. Also try to comprehend that a refusal to issue a license to marry does not prohibit anyone from doing what they wish. Gays don't need a license to be with their partner.

On the other hand, if we were to redefine marriage, Gays would become a protected class. Once this happens, Gays could and would sue Churches and others for refusing to marry them. They can AND HAVE sued the Church for refusing to adopt children to them.

Once again, because I know you are having difficulty understanding this, Gays HAVE SUED Churches for discrimination.

This, in case you are still having difficulty, is a use of force. It is using the legal system to force people to conform to their lifestyle.

OK, now I have stated this in very simple terms and I think I made it very easy to understand.

You can disagree all you want, but please try to wrap your brain around who is using force against whom and who is simply refusing to do as they wish.

To legalize gay marriage, they need me and others to vote for it. We don't want to do that and we will not be FORCED to so they can use the legal system to bully people.

I am however, willing to vote in favor of civil unions so that they may receive all the same benefits of marriage without bullying everyone else.

 

[ancap]

Rickwhite,

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Responding to your posts point by point is a show of respecting your arguments enough to address each of them. On the other hand, you refuse to pick apart my arguments because I suspect you cannot stand up to each of them individually (I would sincerely love you to try) OR you simply have no idea how to debate someone. Instead of really presenting a sound dispute of my individual points, you call all of them idiotic because you fear addressing them on some level. Why would you present a dozen arguments if you didn't expect me to address all of them? If I am wrong somewhere, why don't you reason from first principles and explain to me why I am wrong, just like I have done with each and every one of your arguments? When you start name calling, you have clearly lost the debate because you have nothing left but old arguments and frustration. I put a lot of thought into all of my posts. It took time to quote each of your points. You might as well put me on your ignore list because you've been ignoring me since we started talking.

Im done here unless you can muster the courage to respond to each of my challenges. Somehow, I just doubt you will.

 

[RickWhite]

Rickwhite,

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Responding to your posts point by point is a show of respecting your arguments enough to address each of them. On the other hand, you refuse to pick apart my arguments because I suspect you cannot stand up to each of them individually (I would sincerely love you to try) OR you simply have no idea how to debate someone. Instead of really presenting a sound dispute of my individual points, you call all of them idiotic because you fear addressing them on some level. Why would you present a dozen arguments if you didn't expect me to address all of them? If I am wrong somewhere, why don't you reason from first principles and explain to me why I am wrong, just like I have done with each and every one of your arguments? When you start name calling, you have clearly lost the debate because you have nothing left but old arguments and frustration. I put a lot of thought into all of my posts. It took time to quote each of your points. You might as well put me on your ignore list because you've been ignoring me since we started talking.

Im done here unless you can muster the courage to respond to each of my challenges. Somehow, I just doubt you will.

There is a big difference between responding to a person's claims and responding to each sentence with wisecracks that are purely argumentative in nature.

Speaking of being purely argumentative, look at your own post. There are no claims there. The entire post is nothing but a personal attack.

look at my last post. I articulated a few practical issues with the redefinition of marriage and I explained that nobody can encroach on the liberties of others through inaction. And I explained that Gays using their protected status and the legal system would encroach on the liberties of others through lawsuits. There are only a couple key concepts here. If you can't respond to them in a straight forward manner without wisecracking each sentence maybe you should be doing less talking and more listening.

 

[ancap]

Rickwhite,

I didn't make any arguments in my last post because you categorically refuse to answer the arguments I have already presented. You claim these arguments are false and contain no substance (are wisecracks). However, you again refuse to single out even ONE argument I have made and demonstrate how it is false or a wisecrack. I will not continue to address your points until you have the backbone to begin addressing mine. I challenge you to "multi-quote" me and pick my logic apart, though for some reason you seem to get offended when this happens to you. It's your turn to show me where I'm wrong.

By the way, I've read through my post from 10/16 and cannot even fathom how you could think that one thing I said was a "wisecrack".

 

[doobnVA]

ancap: You make some terrific points. I admire your willingness to continue engaging RickWhite on this issue, however I feel it necessary to advise you that his opinions are not based on any logical view and he will continue to debate you (if you can call what he does "debate") until you're ready to tear your own face off in frustration. He simply cannot accept any opposing viewpoint, and anyone who disagrees with him is insulted, slandered, and verbally assaulted by him (while he accuses his opponent of doing the same to him, even when they clearly haven't).

He holds himself in very high regard, and everyone else is merely an "extra". There is no room for supporting characters in his world.

In short, he is a troll, and you'd be better off ignoring him than encouraging his diatribe. I can honestly say that my time on Rollitup.org has been much more pleasant since I chose not to view his posts, and I hope that yours will be, too.

 

[fdd2blk]

ancap: You make some terrific points. I admire your willingness to continue engaging RickWhite on this issue, however I feel it necessary to advise you that his opinions are not based on any logical view and he will continue to debate you (if you can call what he does "debate") until you're ready to tear your own face off in frustration. He simply cannot accept any opposing viewpoint, and anyone who disagrees with him is insulted, slandered, and verbally assaulted by him (while he accuses his opponent of doing the same to him, even when they clearly haven't).

He holds himself in very high regard, and everyone else is merely an "extra". There is no room for supporting characters in his world.

In short, he is a troll, and you'd be better off ignoring him than encouraging his diatribe. I can honestly say that my time on Rollitup.org has been much more pleasant since I chose not to view his posts, and I hope that yours will be, too.

sounds like 80% of the people posting here, including yourself.

 

[ancap]

I think you're absolutely right, doobva. I normally end converserations immediately as soon as I realize the other party is not even willing to take the time to attempt to absorb my thoughts and craft a direct and coherent challenge to the ideas presented. When engaging someone in a conversation of truth and ethics, you generally run into people like RickWhite. Someone who is so genuinely convinced of the ethical principals they claim to be valid, however do not have the skills necessary and/or sound enough argument to articulate a rebuttle from first principles (by establishing a foundational ethical argument on which to base their subsequent points).

I made a myriad of logical and ethical arguments that deconstructed virtually everything Rickwhite posted (this took an investment of time). Rickwhite's idea of a complex examination of my thoughts is to say...

1. Your remarks are snide wisecracks.
2. You try to use confusing and excessive language to make your points ("verbosity").
3. You have some innate inability to comprehend an argument.
4. Your responses are not "straight forward" enough.

Rickwhite, do you notice that none of these statements have anything to do with addressing ANY specific point I have made. I'm trying to give Rick a chance here! Come on buddy, I'm really pulling for you! Give me your best logical one-two punch! I'm PLEADING with you to have a REAL debate with me. If I've missed a specific question or point you don't feel I've addressed, please restate it and I will happily meet the proposal with the application of truth and curiosity. I know you have it in you!

 

[RickWhite]

ancap: You make some terrific points. I admire your willingness to continue engaging RickWhite on this issue, however I feel it necessary to advise you that his opinions are not based on any logical view and he will continue to debate you (if you can call what he does "debate") until you're ready to tear your own face off in frustration. He simply cannot accept any opposing viewpoint, and anyone who disagrees with him is insulted, slandered, and verbally assaulted by him (while he accuses his opponent of doing the same to him, even when they clearly haven't).

He holds himself in very high regard, and everyone else is merely an "extra". There is no room for supporting characters in his world.

In short, he is a troll, and you'd be better off ignoring him than encouraging his diatribe. I can honestly say that my time on Rollitup.org has been much more pleasant since I chose not to view his posts, and I hope that yours will be, too.

Funny, he posts for the sole reason of doing exactly what he is accusing me of doing but adds nothing to the conversation. Who is the troll here?

What a tool.

 

[RickWhite]

I think you're absolutely right, doobva. I normally end converserations immediately as soon as I realize the other party is not even willing to take the time to attempt to absorb my thoughts and craft a direct and coherent challenge to the ideas presented. When engaging someone in a conversation of truth and ethics, you generally run into people like RickWhite. Someone who is so genuinely convinced of the ethical principals they claim to be valid, however do not have the skills necessary and/or sound enough argument to articulate a rebuttle from first principles (by establishing a foundational ethical argument on which to base their subsequent points).

I made a myriad of logical and ethical arguments that deconstructed virtually everything Rickwhite posted (this took an investment of time). Rickwhite's idea of a complex examination of my thoughts is to say...

1. Your remarks are snide wisecracks.
2. You try to use confusing and excessive language to make your points ("verbosity").
3. You have some innate inability to comprehend an argument.
4. Your responses are not "straight forward" enough.

Rickwhite, do you notice that none of these statements have anything to do with addressing ANY specific point I have made. I'm trying to give Rick a chance here! Come on buddy, I'm really pulling for you! Give me your best logical one-two punch! I'm PLEADING with you to have a REAL debate with me. If I've missed a specific question or point you don't feel I've addressed, please restate it and I will happily meet the proposal with the application of truth and curiosity. I know you have it in you!

I've responded to all of your significant points at least 3 times. I can't force you to comprehend what you read. I don't have time to respond to the torrent of dogmatic retorts you have posted and quite Frankly there are a number I will not waste time on. Here is one of your key points that has been answered numerous times.

Creating a secondary system for the same type of contract based on a person's sexual orientation is wrong. There is no practical reason why you would wish to do such a thing when it comes to the application of the law. It all narrows down to your personal values (or prejudices) and you have no right to use government force to legislate either. I feel like I'm having to make arguments analogous to opposing the idea of equal but seperate public bathrooms for blacks.

First, we have separate bathrooms for men and women so that is a moot point.

Secondly, I will repeat yet again that nobody has a RIGHT to be married. Now since you seem to have especially poor reading comprehension I'll say it again. Nobody has a RIGHT to be married.

Nobody is proposing legislation to prevent anyone from doing as they please and there is no force being used to stop Gays from Marrying. All the State is doing is saying that it will not endorse such a union. To NOT ENDORSE and to PREVENT are two different things. The law says that if you rob a night club people with guns will come and put you in jail. That is a use of force.

There is no such use of force preventing Gays from marrying. Nobody is threatening to put them in jail if they have a wedding ceremony. To be fair there are old laws prohibiting homosexuality and I agree they should be taken off the books for the reason you gave. But not issuing a marriage license to everyone who wants one is not a use of force.

On the other hand Gays do want to use force to force others to accept their lifestyle.

Really, I have stated all this several times. Why don't you read back a few pages and you will see that this is true. I don't know why you are saying I haven't answered your questions. The only reason I can think of is that you just aren't understanding my answers.

 

[RickWhite]

Ancap, maybe this will answer a few of your more silly questions such as "where is the proof that traditional famlies are the best for children." To be honest, I'm not going to get into debating silliness.

Marriage: What Social Science Says and Doesn't Say
by Jennifer A. Marshall
WebMemo #503
Social science data indicate that the intact family—defined as a man and a woman who marry, conceive, and raise their children together—best ensures the current and future welfare of children and society when compared with other common forms of households. As alternative family forms have become more prevalent since the 1960s, social science research and government surveys have indicated an accompanying rise in a number of serious social problems.
Government’s interest in marriage has been based primarily on its interest in the welfare of the next generation. Among the many types of social relationships, marriage has always had a special place in all legal traditions, our own included, because it is the essential foundation of the intact family, and no other family form has been able to provide a commensurate level of social security.
In all other common family and household forms, the risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater, increasing the risk of dependence on state services. A free society requires a critical mass of individuals in stable households who are not dependent on the state. The most stable and secure household, the available research shows, is the intact family. Therefore, the state has an interest in protecting the intact family and we should be cautious about facilitating other forms of household, the effects of which are either deleterious or unknown.
Compared with counterparts in other common household arrangements, adolescents in intact families have better health, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems, data show. By contrast, national surveys reveal that, as a group, children in other family forms studied are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and emotional problems, lower academic achievement, and drug use. These surveys illustrate

• Adolescents in intact families, as a group, are the least likely to feel depressed compared to those with divorced, step-, cohabiting, or single parents; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
• The national average grade-point scores of children in intact families is 2.98, compared to 2.79 for children of cohabiting parents and 2.71 for children living in stepfamilies; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
• The rate of youth incarceration is significantly greater for children raised in single-mother and stepfamily homes than for those raised in intact families, even after controlling for parental income and education; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth)
• Children in non-intact families are three times as likely to have children outside of marriage; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.) and
• Rates of engaging in problem behaviors such as lying, stealing, drunkenness, and violence are sharply higher for children of divorce compared to children in intact families. (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

During the 1990s, a serious public policy debate resulted when emerging social science data showed the consequences of several decades of experimentation with family forms. Out of this increased awareness grew a movement for policy and cultural changes to reinforce and restore marriage in America. Policy decisions—such as welfare reform—were grounded in these data. We have seen some of the fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.

By contrast, the current debate over same-sex marriage is not anchored in sound research, and data on the consequences of children being brought up by same-sex couples remains scarce. Same-sex couples with children constitute a new form of household that has not been carefully studied. Nor has the objective of this policy discussion been clearly defined as the interest of children or the future of the nation’s families.

Same-sex marriage advocates propose that we institutionalize a social experiment in its early stages by elevating it in law to the status of the oldest of institutions: marriage. That experiment is the same-sex coupling and parenting recently taking place around us. To be sure, Americans have become more accepting of other types of sexual experimentation—sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, single parenting—but do not equate them with or see them as a substitute for marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely the proposal before us on the question of same-sex marriage: that we institutionalize in law an experiment about which we have very little knowledge.

The data on the homosexual household is extremely limited. We know relatively little about the long-term effects of homosexual relationships on partners and even less about the children that will be raised in such households. Such an absence of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution of society. Thus we should study the results of the current experiment in homosexual households with children rather than forcing communities at large to accept, by law, same-sex marriage and parenting.

We should also further explore what it is about marriage that sets the intact family apart in the current research . Many would contend that the unique natures and contributions of a male and a female constitute the critical characteristic of marriage, and that the distinctive sexual nature and identity of each parent, along with their number (two rather than one) and relationship status (marriage rather than cohabitation), gives the intact family the exceptional quality it exhibits. This needs to be examined carefully, to determine how having two parents of opposite sexes contributes to the upbringing of a child.

In the meantime, with the policy debate forced by same-sex marriage advocates beyond the conclusions of existent social science research, we must look to the best evidence currently available about family forms and their social impacts. What we know about alternative family forms is a good indicator of what we might expect from this variant.

Modern policymaking should be informed by the realities of available empirical evidence. In time, the data will be forthcoming on this newest form of experimentation, same-sex partnering and parenting, and its effects on homosexual men and women and on those who live with them. In the meantime America’s marriage and family law should stay the course based on what we do know.