This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
These anti-gay marriage arguments don't get any better through repetition.To take just perhaps the most common example, which is included in this piece, gay and lesbian parents are perfectly capable parents. Every qualified organization with childcare expertise endorses them.Here is a literature review of the subject:http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdfBut really, if taken seriously the demand that LGBT couples prove worthy parents before we'll let them get tax benefits or raise children proves too much. If you split the population into groups, eventually you will find some groups that are below average at parenting. Should we then deny these group the ability to raise children? What if, not implausibly, this group includes couples who make under $20,000? Or, more implausibly, what if it includes couples that watch pro wrestling or go fishing?
Just fyi, the authors have adapted this article into a full-length book:http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
These anti-gay marriage arguments don't get any better through repetition.In your own words, what is the primary reason the article gives against the concept of "gay marriage"?
What really cracks me up about the proponents of same-sex marriage is their utter hypocrisy. They fly the rainbow flag, supposedly showing their "tolerance for diversity", but then show absolutely zero tolerance for those who disagree with them. They crack the whip and demand that there be no dissenting opinion, lest ye be labeled "bigot" or "hateful" or even worse. Their flag by rights ought to be a monochrome gray, to mirror their own insistence on unquestioning groupthink.True diversity? A man and a woman, as different from each other as you can get, yet living together and learning from each other. Now that's diversity!
In your own words, what is the primary reason the article gives against the concept of "gay marriage"?"He gives plenty of individual reasons but they all center on his unjustified belief that only man-woman union in marriage is ideal for the couple, good for society and good for the children.Almost everything he said in defense of these claims is either irrelevant to why same-sex couples should be denied tax benefits and able to raise children or is wrong. However, since this is a comment and not a full length reply, let's just focus on one issue at a time. As I pointed out above, the claim about raising children is particularly laughable. He claims the husband wife union is the best environment for raising children and says this has been "strongly corroborated by the best available social science." From the paper I posted above a great quote:"Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights"You can argue that this consensus is the result of a conspiracy or is wrong, but to claim it doesn't exist, or worse that a consensus exists supporting the opposite conclusion, is farcical.
From the book:"Finally, to state the obvious: None of these points about parenting implies that men and women in same-sex relationships have weaker devotion, or less capacity for affection. After all, it is no insult to heroic single parents to point to data showing that parenting by mother and father together is more effective."--p.62The sentimental nonsense about these fellows denigrating gay people as parents misses the point, but inadvertently makes theirs nicely: the social science (which they critique in detail in the book), will serve to back up their prediction, which is the true reason for worry: "as the connection between marriage and parenting is obscured, as we think it would be eventually, no arrangement would be proposed as ideal."
He gives plenty of individual reasons but they all center on his unjustified belief that only man-woman union in marriage is ideal for the couple, good for society and good for the children.As I predicted, this answer suggests that you either do not understand the question, the article or both. Moving along ...
As I predicted, this answer suggests that you either do not understand the question, the article or both. Moving along ...^ Because it's easier to pretend I am a simpleton, and therefore beneath engaging, than to address the substance of my arguments.Ironically, given your reply it seems likely no answer I could have given would have been deemed worthy by you. Had I decided to say the author's belief that the physical act of intercourse between a man and woman is central to marriage I likely would have been regaled with how that was only part of his argument (and it was) and how he was really focusing on the benefit of children and society.Unfortunately for you, I have no interest in playing "guess the password" and I think it is clear to those reading this that your evasion of any substantive argument doesn't bolster your position.
Hello Marcus,A couple of questions on your posts:1) Why is tax benefits apart of your argument? Don't you see the tax code, on all levels, is subtle (or not so subtle) government coercion? It is a coercion we should resist and it should have no influence on whether a man and woman should have a child.2) You do recognize the historical checkered conclusions of the social sciences, right? The conclusions are usually politically and culturally dependent. I think it is good to step outside the conclusions of the social sciences and allow some experience in evaluating their claims. I would ask, did I really need a father (or would two mothers do?). Did I really need a mother (or would two fathers do?).These questions give me some perspective on the current political and cultural pressures on the social sciences.
Dave Duffy,"1) Why is tax benefits apart of your argument? Don't you see the tax code, on all levels, is subtle (or not so subtle) government coercion? It is a coercion we should resist and it should have no influence on whether a man and woman should have a child.Tax benefits are part of my argument because, along with property rights and hospital visitation, tax benefits are central in what LGBT couples are being denied by being denied the legal benefits of marriage. Whether or not the tax code, in these instances, is unjustifiably manipulative has little impact on what are the realistic solutions to current problems we face. For example, I'm no fan of the U.S. congressional system but the solution to Washington D.C. having no representation in that system isn't "let's not get them representation until such a time when we can construct an ideal system." That time of complete reform could be "never" but right now if we could be fair under the current non-optimal system we should do so."2) You do recognize the historical checkered conclusions of the social sciences, right? The conclusions are usually politically and culturally dependent."The social sciences do have a checkered past, but so does biology. They both, however, have made huge methodological strides in the past century as we learn more and more about how we fool ourselves. Therefore, it would be flatly wrong to suggest that our confidence in the conclusions of social science research today should be equivalent to those made in the early 20th century. I'm not saying today's results are unquestionable but they are certainly far, far better than arm chair theorizing about what is beneficial to people.Moreover, the author of the paper in question here claimed quite wrongly that modern social science says gay and lesbians aren't as capable parents as straight couples. And, even if it were true that LGBT couples were below average parents, as I pointed out above, singling them out as opposed to any other demographic is revealing in and of itself.We already have a standard for parenting, namely, if through your actions you prove to be a serious danger to your children the state will take them away from you. If that standard is sufficient for straight couples of all variations why the heightened scrutiny for LGBT couples?
Had I decided to say the author's belief that the physical act of intercourse between a man and woman is central to marriageyou would have given the only correct answer, which also happens to be the obviously correct one. But I'm glad that at least NOW you've read the article up to that point.
you would have given the only correct answer, which also happens to be the obviously correct oneNonsense. Just because that one is the title doesn't make it correct as he through up half a dozen or more arguments. He spent a some time on the "natural intercourse = only basis for marriage" and referred back to it at times but spent just as much, if not more, total time on arguments that LGBT parents aren't good enough, that gay males aren't monogamous enough, that legal protection for LGBT marriage will harm religious freedom and weaken marriage norms, etc. Those arguments have nothing to do with the physical act of sex as central to marriage. They stand or fall on their own.Nonetheless, again I notice you spend literally zero effort addressing substantive arguments. So, I will take your advice and "move along."
Post a Comment