Quote: (05-13-2012 11:52 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Yep, sounds like all those studies which prove women are better managers than men while they earn 20% less. Better entrepreneurs. Better at single parenting.

Here we have a study saying to us that two people, who naturally cannot even fucking conceive without a third party/medical intervention, are actually better parents than traditional mother/father combos.

Whats so funny about this though is that its expected to be taken seriously and was put forward seriously. By a guy on a forum dedicated to game, which is based almost entirely on the premise that gender roles exist.

One possible explanation is that gay couples who have kids intend to become parents almost 100% of the time (since they have to go out of their way to do it through adoption, IVF, or a surrogate), whereas many children of heterosexual couples are the result of unplanned pregnancies. The result is that there are a lot of heterosexual parents out there who aren't as prepared to raise children as most gay parents. (I don't know whether this explanation actually explains the observed findings, or for that matter whether there actually is anything to be explained--to my knowledge that effect hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.)

For somebody who just lambasted emotional decision-making you sure are making this argument heated. The data show what they show, whether it agrees with your preconceived notions or not. That's why I'm not persuaded when you dismiss over 30 years of psychology literature with a sweeping statement like "They are loaded studies and the sample sizes are so small they tell you nothing" and nothing to back it up. By all means criticize the research if you want, but statements like that don't mean anything if you're not prepared to defend them with arguments and evidence.

By the way, I'd really like to hear your opinion on whether gay couples should be preferred to single people as adoptive parents. By your own argument there's direct evidence that single-parent homes produce inferior outcomes for children, but you've only been able to argue indirectly (and I believe unsuccessfully) for a similar effect in children with gay parents. All 50 states allow singles to adopt children. All else equal, surely gay couples should get ahead of them in line, right?

Quote: (05-13-2012 05:42 PM)kosko Wrote:  

These studies I find are flawed.

Let's be clear here: you did not find any studies. If you did, you'd quote them already, or at least mention them. You're just making things up.

Quote: (05-13-2012 08:07 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

This is exactly how I believe gay marriage should be treated. I am 100% against gay marriage, simply because of the word marriage. Marriage carries a religious meaning that goes back to the religious roots of this country. The roots being deeply seated in Christianity.
Marriage, as a part of the Christian religion, is between a man and a women. It has been that way since the inception of Christianity.

Quite honestly I do not even understand why marriage is still on the law books given its religious connotations. What happened to separation of Church and State in this case?

There are obvious problems with that statement, already recognized in pretty much every court decision about the gay marriage so far:

1. Marriage in the USA was always a civil contract, defined and regulated by the government. Yes, a church official could perform the marriage but ONLY because the government gave them right to do so. The marriage performed according to the church/Christian rules but contrary to the laws (for example between the persons under the age of consent for the marriage) is not recognized by the government as valid. According to the court trial records, never during the whole USA history entering or dissolving the civil marriage required the church acceptance, or even participation. This is also true for other countries - for example, I got married in a city government office, and didn't even come close to a church; nevertheless my marriage is recognized not only by the Russian, but also by the U.S. government.

2. The change you're suggesting would be far more socially devastating that just letting the gays marry, because it indeed would affect the existing marriages - while letting gays marry would not. This is why it is not going to happen.

Quote:gringo Wrote:

One possible explanation is that gay couples who have kids intend to become parents almost 100% of the time (since they have to go out of their way to do it through adoption, IVF, or a surrogate), whereas many children of heterosexual couples are the result of unplanned pregnancies. The result is that there are a lot of heterosexual parents out there who aren't as prepared to raise children as most gay parents. (I don't know whether this explanation actually explains the observed findings, or for that matter whether there actually is anything to be explained--to my knowledge that effect hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.)

For somebody who just lambasted emotional decision-making you sure are making this argument heated. The data show what they show, whether it agrees with your preconceived notions or not. That's why I'm not persuaded when you dismiss over 30 years of psychology literature with a sweeping statement like "They are loaded studies and the sample sizes are so small they tell you nothing" and nothing to back it up. By all means criticize the research if you want, but statements like that don't mean anything if you're not prepared to defend them with arguments and evidence.

By the way, I'd really like to hear your opinion on whether gay couples should be preferred to single people as adoptive parents. By your own argument there's direct evidence that single-parent homes produce inferior outcomes for children, but you've only been able to argue indirectly (and I believe unsuccessfully) for a similar effect in children with gay parents. All 50 states allow singles to adopt children. All else equal, surely gay couples should get ahead of them in line, right?

Not prepared to defend them with evidence? Dude, I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries. You are citing loaded studies using small samples. Im not the one holding a contradictory point of view here. You are taking the position that gender does not matter, not me. Im consistent, even when that view is unpopular or uncomfortable. You are inconsistent in your views, which means you either lack principle or you are a dimwit being led around by the short and curlies.

Save the lectures. Psychological studies and literature? Fuck the psychologists, give me crime, welfare, employment and health statistics instead thanks. Lets correlate that with family stats and see what it gives us. I trust that more than I do agenda driven academics releasing loaded studies which present the progressive outcomes they desire. Learn to tell the difference and stop trying to automatically claim moral authority by deferring to "experts" who will prop up your argument.

And no, single parent homes are equally unacceptable. Traditional, nuclear families are best, proven by demographic statistics over decades. I honestly do not give a continental fuck how offensive that is either, nor do I care for "studies" conducted to prove otherwise. Such studies tend to be intellectually dishonest, attempting to rather disprove "hate fact" more often than anything else.

Clearly though, you think you are winning this exchange. Feel free to believe so. As I say, I have bookmarked this thread for future reference. Should any of the four names I listed dare complain about the effects of feminism or the attempts to eliminate the concept of gender, Ill be pointing you back to this thread. Maybe the lecture halls you spend all day in will tolerate your contradictory beliefs, but men hang out and most men dont tolerate inconsistent behavior and bullshit.

Lets just call you four gender denialists and give you a taste of your own medicine. You were all so quick to resort to shaming tactics when you disagreed with Speakeasy it seems, lets put the ball back in your court now. Lets put you guys under the spotlight now.

Bacan, Gringo, Keyser, Old Nemisis = gender denialists

Im calling all 4 of you gender denialists. Please feel free to defend yourself now, or forever go forward with that label. You tap out, Ill assume I was right about you being a dirty gender denialist.

Quote: (05-13-2012 11:34 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

God damn, look at the attempt to shame away. Tell me Old Nemisis, did you get sand in your vagina or is that tampon just irritating you?

That's very impressive, and it speaks a lot about what kind of opponent you are, and how much effort you are worth.

Nevertheless, your whole post is again not about the gay marriage which we discuss here, but about the adoption issues.

Quote:Quote:

The research supports the belief that traditional homes with clear defined gender roles tend to produce more well grounded kids? Its not small sample sizes over 10 years, we are talking about studies over entire countries and cultures across decades.

Show me the studies which confirm that traditional homes with two parents and clear defined gender roles tend to produce more well grounded kids comparing to non-traditional homes with two parents but no clear defined gender roles, and then we can talk. I'm pretty sure you never read such a study yourself, and you're just making things up, so your words carry no weight at all.

Yes, I'm calling you out - I think that's the right term. You have made up quite a bold statement which goes contrary to at least two court rulings here in the USA which stated the opposite. So now either put up, or shut up.

PS. I'm still waiting for your reply whether you believe that the current practice of having the single parents to adopt the kid is bad and should be outlawed.

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:11 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Nevertheless, your whole post is again not about the gay marriage which we discuss here, but about the adoption issues.

And yet the issue of child rearing was raised by you in this very thread. Unless homosexuals have found a way to breed without a third party, Im not quite sure what option they have outside adoption

Quote:Quote:

Show me the studies which confirm that traditional homes with two parents and clear defined gender roles tend to produce more well grounded kids comparing to non-traditional homes with two parents but no clear defined gender roles, and then we can talk. I'm pretty sure you never read such a study yourself, and you're just making things up, so your words carry no weight at all.

Yes, I'm calling you out - I think that's the right term. You have made up quite a bold statement which goes contrary to at least two court rulings here in the USA which stated the opposite. So now either put up, or shut up.

PS. I'm still waiting for your reply whether you believe that the current practice of having the single parents to adopt the kid is bad and should be outlawed.

Like I said, Im not going to spend all day posting links to studies and research which is widely available. There is TONS of it out there, it not my fault if your own misguided ignorance gets the better of you.

As someone in this community, your exposure to this would be far higher than any other pleb on the street, which makes your request even more laughable.

Either you agree with the fact that gender is a social construct OR you lack the principle and conviction to stand by your beliefs, even when unpopular or uncomfortable

Consider that before you call anyones character into question

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:06 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Not prepared to defend them with evidence? Dude, I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries.

No, you do not, I haven't seen a single cite or even a reference in your recent posts. You're not citing anything - at best you're telling us your personal interpretation of the studies you read.

You also do not follow the rules of the discussion. You just dump a load of made-up things on us, and expect us to refute it with the academia-grade references. Sorry bro, things do not work this way. Until you prove your words are worth such investment, they're not worth spending time on the scientific arguments to counter them. After all, you're not the court judge deciding the case.

Quote:Quote:

As I say, I have bookmarked this thread for future reference. Should any of the four names I listed dare complain about the effects of feminism or the attempts to eliminate the concept of gender, Ill be pointing you back to this thread.

I'm afraid at that moment your opinion would be so worthless for all four of us that your efforts would be essentially useless. After all, who cares about what a bigot thinks and how many bookmarks he has? Every one of us could easily post the links to the posts where you were asked for the evidence to support your brazen statements, and you refused to provide those, which would make it clear you have zero credibility on the subject and just like to make the things up to suit your agenda.

Quote:Quote:

Lets just call you four gender denialists and give you a taste of your own medicine. You were all so quick to resort to shaming tactics when you disagreed with Speakeasy it seems, lets put the ball back in your court now.

You don't have the power to do so. Make your own case first, and then I'll decide if you're an opponent which is worthy discussing the things with. So far you did not make such impression.

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:22 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

And yet the issue of child rearing was raised by you in this very thread. Unless homosexuals have found a way to breed without a third party, Im not quite sure what option they have outside adoption

You obviously didn't read further. Here in US we let the people marry even if they cannot breed. We let marry the folks in their 70s, the disabled people, and people with the tubes tied and so on.

As I said, it is obvious you never read any court decisions. All of them explained that.

Quote:Quote:

Like I said, Im not going to spend all day posting links to studies and research which is widely available. There is TONS of it out there, it not my fault if your own misguided ignorance gets the better of you.

That's exactly what I expected. You claim there are TONS of studies but you cannot post a link to even a single one of them - to prove the statement that two different gender parents would provide a better opportunity for a child than two same gender parents. Sorry bro, but if you have nothing to back up your opinion after you claimed it is so well supported by studies, you're disqualified as a worthy opponent. Bye.

*sigh again* this is so typical for the bigot crowd.

@Old Nemisis

You just did it again. Again, you resort to more of this shaming tactic horseshit in an effort to discredit the entire opinion of the person you disagree with. Its not going to work here bro, people can see through it. This is what brought me into the debate in the first place and its nothing short of sickening that you feel you are entitled to do this without a reaction. You are guilty of the same crap feminists use when you slander people left and right, despite the fact that your entire point of view in this instance is based on nothing more than your own hypocrisy!

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE

You cannot in one breath condemn feminists, and then in the next share their basic ideology when it suits you. You can try and attack my character all you want, anyones character for that matter, it does not change the fact that you are inconsistent. How can you even take yourself seriously, let alone demand everyone else should with that sort of behavior?

Even more amusing is the fact that when the shoe is on the other foot, you just up the shaming tactics further as you try and eject. The only reason I resorted to the same thing is to judge your reaction. As expected, the hypocrisy of your views is difficult to justify and you know it, so you resort instead to playing the man as you duck for cover.

You basically spend a fair whack of time on a forum in a community where gender issues are regularly discussed, yet feign complete ignorance with regards to the effects of feminism and single parent homes on society as a whole when it suits you?

Like I said, this shit is discussed ad nausem across the PUA, MRA and MGTOW community. To seriously sit there and demand further evidence, given that you are in the right library section where its all at your fingertips, is absurd to say the least. Its like someone on a mixed martial arts forum demanding he see proof that jiu jitsu works even though its 2012.

You dont believe in gender roles and believe gender to be a social construct. If you did not and you were a man of any principle at all, you could not logically believe gay adoption rights were acceptable. If you do believe in gender roles, yet take no issue with gay adoption, then you clearly lack principle and conviction dont you?

Its that black and white, and you will be reminded of that the next time you decide to admonish other members like you did in this thread. At least we know where you stand, be gentle in your criticism of feminism going forward please. Remember that they share the same ideology and beliefs that you do

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:36 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:22 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

And yet the issue of child rearing was raised by you in this very thread. Unless homosexuals have found a way to breed without a third party, Im not quite sure what option they have outside adoption

You obviously didn't read further. Here in US we let the people marry even if they cannot breed. We let marry the folks in their 70s, the disabled people, and people with the tubes tied and so on.

As I said, it is obvious you never read any court decisions. All of them explained that.

Because we don't require people to breed to get married doesn't mean that it isn't the driving reason behind marriage. There such a thing as having social ideals. And people getting married and having kids is one of them. Unless you a) Want people to have kids out of wedlock, which often leads to social problems(i.e. what you see in the ghettos) or b) Don't want people to have kids at all and then you will face another social problem - negative population growth rate and the economic problems that come from that.

I think marriage with children addresses these two issues perfectly and that's why the idea is encouraged. Of course not everybody is going to fit into it, but the standard serves a good purpose. Plus there would technically be no way to enforce whether married couples had kids. The best the government can do is encourage it by giving tax benefits for dependent children. Some countries such as Russia actually pay women to have kids.

Quote:Quote:

Some countries such as Russia actually pay women to have kids

yeah - because russia is such a shining example for any democracy around the world - lol

Sorry, bad idea

*dons firefighter gear* Ok, let me jump in with a quick opinion:

1. Marriage is mainly a social privilege between two willing people. Most usually, as it has been throughout history, that means a man and a woman. However, the most important thing about marriage is this: it brings different treatment both in tangible points prescribed by the law, in terms of tax benefits, medical care, and in intangible points such as social status, respect, (alleged) health benefits, stability and etc.

2. It is not fair to deny these benefits to any two willing people because they are of wrong sexual orientation; to do so would be discrimination. If the two people in question were (some other trait, say Jewish or Black, or White), it would clearly be illegal to exclude them from the right to sign the contract and get those same benefits - some would say unconstitutional.

2A. Sure, if we view marriage as a moral category instead of a contract (such as many religious institutions do), we might say it is between a man and a woman and no others. Fair enough! We can call it Marriage ™. But we still cannot discriminate against other people - that would be illegal, as said above. Even if they're not called Marriage ™ (this could be determined in court, i.e. is the term "marriage" copyrighted by anyone), their unions need to have the same privilege. Some might call it a "Civil Union", some might call it a "Marriage", or "Marriage 2.0". Personally, I don't care, but their rights need to be equal, otherwise it's discrimination.

3. The above two points were completely unrelated to the subject of kids. So, we've established that this union/marriage is the right of all people. But what about the kids? Homosexual unions/marriages cannot naturally produce children. Should they have the right to pay for and use a surrogate mother or a sperm donor for in vitro? Should they be able to adopt? Those are all things that people in marriages normally do, but these ones can't because of their biological constraints. Now, this is where the debate gets interesting:

3A. Is having children a basic human right? I say not. It is not an existential issue, or even close to it. There is no reason for the state to fund homosexual couples' visits to the clinic, or provide them with a selection of children to adopt. It might, but it is not their basic right. If they get it, it is merely the state being generous. Personally, I say that it is their (the homosexual couples) business as long as they do it on their own and with their own money.
No one should restrict them, so as long as the state has no obligation to pay for it, all is fine. If the state paid for it, then it should also pay for my visits to hot young prostitutes when I get old and unable to get young women, an example of another completely non-existential issue that I had the choice to resolve myself.

3B. But what about the fate of the children? What will happen to children who grow up in homosexual unions? Will it harm them in some way, so we should ban homosexual couples from artificially having or adopting children? Tricky question, no one has produced convincing proof that it would harm the children yet.

Personally, I believe that it might produce some harm - not too serious, but statistically significant anyway. Growing up with two parents and a role model of each gender is important for a child's development. If one of them is lacking, there could be consequences (I don't think it would mean that the child would be homosexual or anything - that's mainly genetics - but growing up pussy-whipped, without game (if male), or with attraction to jerks and father figures(if female)? Maybe)

However, our society already allows for no-fault divorce, single mothers (the kind who were pumped 'n' dumped by their own wishes) and all kinds of horrible stuff, that has been proven to be devastating to children. Sure, some children from single parent homes (mainly single mother, but let's not be picky) do grow up into normal, successful and well-adjusted people, but a very significant part does not. There was this famous image about Feminism = Bullshit floating around that pulled data from census, criminal records and etc. and found something like 10 times higher rates (10 times, 1000%!!!) or behavioral disorders, 3 times higher chance of suicide, 7 times higher chance of dropping out of school, 5 times higher chance of committing a rape, 20 times higher chance of depression, 2 times higher chance of divorce or teen pregnancy, etc. All of these are clearly disastrous effects caused by modern feminism and one of the reasons why I despise it.

But if the society and laws are fine with allowing divorce and pump 'n' dump single mothers, which have been proven to devastate children's lives, it would be unfair to ban homosexual unions from having children. There is no way that they can have worse effects than the aforementioned single motherhood cases, and there is a good chance that they might be just as good for the children as a normal two-parent heterosexual family would be, or perhaps a bit worse but certainly not worse than what the society already gleefully allows.

So yes to homosexual marriage and adoption of children*. I'm not a fan of it by any means, but to me it seems the only reasonable solution.

* = on the condition that no public funds are involved

I'm all for it. However, I'm also in favor of the state sanctioning legal partnerships between any group of adults up to 12 (beyond that figure it gets absurd, but I'm willing to reconsider on a case-by-case basis) in number.
With gay marriage the law of the land, there will be no logical reason to refuse polygamists, group marriage, or any other combo.
If I earned the money, wouldn't mind having my own harem.

Even better than the nuclear family is the traditional family in a village, community, or family pact. Prior to the nuclear family slugging it out on their own families were raised in tight groups. People would share resources and no child would be left without 100% of its needs met. This still goes on in most parts of the globe and was common in America until the 60's. I believe this us still quite common in France or Spain? Grandparents and relatives stick around to help raise newborns?

Tight communities that stayed on the same block for 25 years+ into next generations where able to build trust and bonds in helping to raise kids. I grew up in a community like this when I was young and my life went downhill when we moved. My parents were never around and when I lost those trusted support systems all hell broke loose. Before housing become a speculative product people stated in homes and passed them down. In historic black communities even with segregation children still had stability within thier communities prior to the 50s and were largely self-sufficient.

If I would of grown up in the bush I would of been raised by my Grandma, aunts, uncles and cousins all around this is the natural way humans raise children.

The only pass I give to the children argument if if same-sex parent couples took one on the chin and realized that even though they are a family, gender roles are still important and thus bring in a grandparent of the opposite gender to help in raising the kid. This would not confuse the child and hammer in important lessons and traits. But this means that the same sex couple throw out mainstream ideology that granted them the right to marry and raise kids in the first place.

I can't see many flocking to that.

I would sense more gay Men would be open to the idea versus lesbians since they would understand that natural defecit men have towards nurturing and child raising in comparison to Women. Plus thier mothers would most likely jump at the chance to help raise another youth.

I think Obama campaign team studied very well this step. And it resulted.

The most important subject for this elections (and most threatful for Obama), Economy, is just being eliminated from political campaign. Mission acomplished.

As I read in an Economist blog:

The announcement is almost certain to help, not hurt, Mr Obama's re-election effort. Those who are radicalised against gay marriage by this announcement weren't going to vote for Mr Obama anyway; they are Republican voters who might have been on the fence about gay marriage. Almost no Democratic-leaning voters will switch or withhold their votes over this announcement. But many Democrats will be enthused to see Mr Obama take leadership on an issue of moral consequence in which they fervently believe. Voter turnout will rise; the tone of support for Mr Obama will become more emphatic. There will be a stronger sense that Mr Obama stands for a vision of America profoundly different from that of Mr Romney.

Quote: (05-14-2012 06:17 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

2. It is not fair to deny these benefits to any two willing people because they are of wrong sexual orientation;

Technically you are not treating them any differently. A straight man cannot marry another man either. And I imagine some might want to do this in a non-sexual union for financial or immigration reasons. The law applies equally to everyone. Even if you don't agree with that, I don't see how anyone can say gays are being treated differently by the law. What they are seeking is special rights to redefine marriage to suit what their vision of it should be because they feel they cannot fit into it by its current definition. Then to make it even more confusing, what even defines who is gay? Are men that go on the downlow in prison gay? They seem perfectly capable of having relations with women when they out. What about guys like that Senator Larry Craig who was married with kids, but still getting down with men in airport bathrooms. Is he gay? How many gays are capable of sex with the opposite gender but perhaps didn't try hard enough(esp true in the case of women where it's often psychological). What about bixexuals? Do they deserve special privileges to be able to marry both genders at the same time? How far do we want to take this?

This whole "separate but equal" thing they keep going on about. Of course it's supposed to be separate. I don't have any problem with gays having some sort of union equivalent to marriage, but just call it something else. When people say "marriage" I want them to think of male/female reflexively. To me this is very important for children and their sexual identity and gender roles. Gay marriage is the ultimate breakdown of gender roles. It was feminism that paved the way for gay marriage by making gender irrelevant. Once that happened, then it was a matter of time before people would say that a mother and father is no more preferable than two moms or two dads, or even a single mom.

Quote: (05-14-2012 03:51 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Because we don't require people to breed to get married doesn't mean that it isn't the driving reason behind marriage. There such a thing as having social ideals. And people getting married and having kids is one of them.

Yes, you are correct. But this is a moot point because there is a significant difference between "some people get married because they want to have kids" and "we require the people who want to get married to have kids". Remember that to uphold the discriminating law which strips away the right from a group, you need to provide a legitimate governmental reason to do so. This is not my personal opinion, this is what the Supreme Court says, and that's how the courts work. The ability or even desire to procreate is not a requirement for the marriage, and therefore it cannot be used as a ground for the legislation.

Quote: (05-14-2012 01:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Technically you are not treating them any differently. A straight man cannot marry another man either. And I imagine some might want to do this in a non-sexual union for financial or immigration reasons. The law applies equally to everyone. Even if you don't agree with that, I don't see how anyone can say gays are being treated differently by the law.

This point is already addressed in the court ruling I linked above. Pages 119-121. Why don't you read them?

Quote:Quote:

When people say "marriage" I want them to think of male/female reflexively. To me this is very important for children and their sexual identity and gender roles.

The main problem in your statement is "to me". You cannot use "to me" as the basis of legislation, as otherwise desegregation would never happen - quite a lot of people were (and still are) unhappy about it. The studies and the overall testimony presented during the trial proved the contrary, even though there was a witness and the studies which tried to support your statement - but the court found them flawed.

Basically you're saying the same things as Hooligan Harry, but - and I give you a credit for that - at least you do not resort to childish insults and name calling. This is why we still discuss it. But essentially the problem is the same, your opinion on the subject has no legal value, you cannot go to the court of law with it. You need the evidence, and the key question is whether you have it. This is why I asked Harry several times to show me a single study (just one out of "tons" out there he claimed there are), and - not surprisingly - every time he refused. This is a major problem, as "me and all my buddies think like that" is not a valid argument for the legislation. If it was, we'd never get desegregation.

Quote: (05-14-2012 07:46 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

If I earned the money, wouldn't mind having my own harem.

Your problem is just money, not the lack of legislation.
Hugh Hefher already has his own harem. So do some Mormons.

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

The legal level constitutes the rights and benefits granted to a couple through marriage, such as tax status, visitation rights, health care benefits, etc. As other commentators have noted, it is unfair to deny these rights to gay couples. The problem with this line of argument, though, is that these rights and benefits do not constitute the essence of marriage. To use philosophical terminology, they are "accidents" - they are not what make a marriage a marriage. The rights and benefits associated with marriage vary from state to state, and from country to country, and are almost an afterthought in anyone's definition of marriage. Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

More fundamentally, marriage is an organic social institution that is independent of whatever legal recognition it receives. If the government ceased to recognize marriage at all, and granted no special benefits to those who called themselves married, would people still get married? Most certainly, yes. But in this case, marriage depends on a collective social recognition of what marriage is, which is not so simple as just signing a piece of paper, or having a court uphold your rights. It depends on a minimum consensus from the community as a whole as to what marriage is about.

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys. However, this is not the government's to give, and legalizing gay marriage does not alter people's intuitive sense of what marriage is about. As I mentioned, marriage is an organic institution, and carries with it the accumulated associations, intuitions, and myths of thousands of years of human civilization, and these are not altered so easily as the tax forms.

So what is this intuitive understanding of marriage, and why are homosexuals excluded from it?

First off, let's take a step back and simply absorb how uncanny it is that marriage is a nearly universal institution. Every society has come up with its own form of marriage, and they have done so more or less independently of one another. How is such a thing possible? How do so many different societies converge at the same idea? If we compare marriage with other rituals that are similarly universal (for example, most cultures have some sort of rite by which newborn babies are initiated into the community), it becomes clear that these rituals are cued to the biological rhythms of human life, and the major life changes. In this way, marriage is one of the natural superstitions of the human race; it gives meaning to and sanctifies a biological development, in the same way that a puberty initiation rite gives tangible expression to the onset of sexual maturity.

So what is the biological development that marriage ritualizes? It is the transformation of the unrealized potential of virgin sexuality into the fertile sexuality of adulthood. Or to put it more prosaically, the central event of marriage is the girl's deflowering. As we all know, the most valuable thing for a civilization is a woman's womb (men are expendable, women are perishable, and all that), and so naturally the moment when that womb begins to take up its reproductive role is of the utmost sanctity.

In order to underscore the value of this womb, and ensure that a woman's fertility is not squandered incubating the random spawn of numerous wastrels and lowlifes (and to restrain woman's natural hypergamy), traditional societies took every measure to make the line between married and unmarried life as black and white as possible. Hence, no sex before marriage for women; for men, only children they had within marriage would be legitimate. The only sexual relationship that was legitimate in the eyes of society was within the bounds of wedlock; it was the only sexual relationship that could be avowed in public and recognized by the community. All other sexual relationships were confined to the margins of society, and were either shamed (fornication, adultery) or tolerated only in secret (prostitution, homosexuality). Why? Because they are either detrimental to marriage's implicit goal -- i.e., ensuring that wombs are used in the best possible way -- or they are irrelevant to that aim (as is homosexuality).

This is the origin of the sense that marriage conveys "legitimacy" to a sexual relationship. And it is precisely this legitimacy which homosexuals are trying to usurp through their attempts to legalize gay marriage (and not content themselves with civil unions). The problem is, however, that gay relationships by their very nature are irrelevant to this system of legitimacy. Gay men, insofar as they are men, are expendable to society: they don't have wombs that are going to waste. And since they are not impregnating women, there is no womb to tie them down to as provider husbands. Whether or not they are in committed relationships with each other is irrelevant to society. With lesbians, again, commitment is irrelevant to society when barren sexual acts are involved. In a lesbian relationship, no womb is going to be impregnated by the wrong man, there is little need to hold female hypergamy in check, and there is no male provider to tie down. The whole concept of "legitimacy" in marriage depends on something being at stake for society, but in gay marriage that is not the case. Moreover, legitimacy depends on the existence of its opposite, illegitimacy, and the stigma associated with that. Under heterosexual marriage, sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage are considered illegitimate. Are homosexuals ready to adopt that system as well? I don't think so.

Of course, some will say that this traditional form of marriage that I have described is on the way out, and that fewer and fewer people are adhering to the behavioral code implicit in this model. I agree. But people do continue to get married, and aspire to marriage, and when they do, where do they derive their idea of marriage? From this whole traditional mythology. The bride still wears virginal white (even if she's not a virgin), people prefer to get married in a church rather than city hall (even if they're not religious), there is still the expectation of "till death do us part," and so on. Traditional marriage still enjoys this cachet because marriage as it existed is one of our natural superstitions, it is the optimal and inevitable sexual arrangement given certain unchangeable features of our biology. Technological and social developments have upset this arrangement, for sure, but we still have the need to sanctify and mythologize our biological existence. It is this need to which marriage responds, and it is this profoundly rooted imagination that cannot so easily be overturned by court rulings.

Quote: (05-14-2012 06:15 PM)naswanji Wrote:  

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

The legal level constitutes the rights and benefits granted to a couple through marriage, such as tax status, visitation rights, health care benefits, etc. As other commentators have noted, it is unfair to deny these rights to gay couples. The problem with this line of argument, though, is that these rights and benefits do not constitute the essence of marriage. To use philosophical terminology, they are "accidents" - they are not what make a marriage a marriage. The rights and benefits associated with marriage vary from state to state, and from country to country, and are almost an afterthought in anyone's definition of marriage. Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

More fundamentally, marriage is an organic social institution that is independent of whatever legal recognition it receives. If the government ceased to recognize marriage at all, and granted no special benefits to those who called themselves married, would people still get married? Most certainly, yes. But in this case, marriage depends on a collective social recognition of what marriage is, which is not so simple as just signing a piece of paper, or having a court uphold your rights. It depends on a minimum consensus from the community as a whole as to what marriage is about.

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys. However, this is not the government's to give, and legalizing gay marriage does not alter people's intuitive sense of what marriage is about. As I mentioned, marriage is an organic institution, and carries with it the accumulated associations, intuitions, and myths of thousands of years of human civilization, and these are not altered so easily as the tax forms.

So what is this intuitive understanding of marriage, and why are homosexuals excluded from it?

First off, let's take a step back and simply absorb how uncanny it is that marriage is a nearly universal institution. Every society has come up with its own form of marriage, and they have done so more or less independently of one another.(Speakeasy's note: And notice that marriage between opposite sex only is also universal in all cultures independent of each other. Could this just be coincidence? When people try to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, they often forget that a ban of IR marriage has never been universal and its use has been staggeringly rare in human history) How is such a thing possible? How do so many different societies converge at the same idea? If we compare marriage with other rituals that are similarly universal (for example, most cultures have some sort of rite by which newborn babies are initiated into the community), it becomes clear that these rituals are cued to the biological rhythms of human life, and the major life changes. In this way, marriage is one of the natural superstitions of the human race; it gives meaning to and sanctifies a biological development, in the same way that a puberty initiation rite gives tangible expression to the onset of sexual maturity.

So what is the biological development that marriage ritualizes? It is the transformation of the unrealized potential of virgin sexuality into the fertile sexuality of adulthood. Or to put it more prosaically, the central event of marriage is the girl's deflowering. As we all know, the most valuable thing for a civilization is a woman's womb (men are expendable, women are perishable, and all that), and so naturally the moment when that womb begins to take up its reproductive role is of the utmost sanctity.

In order to underscore the value of this womb, and ensure that a woman's fertility is not squandered incubating the random spawn of numerous wastrels and lowlifes (and to restrain woman's natural hypergamy), traditional societies took every measure to make the line between married and unmarried life as black and white as possible. Hence, no sex before marriage for women; for men, only children they had within marriage would be legitimate. The only sexual relationship that was legitimate in the eyes of society was within the bounds of wedlock; it was the only sexual relationship that could be avowed in public and recognized by the community. All other sexual relationships were confined to the margins of society, and were either shamed (fornication, adultery) or tolerated only in secret (prostitution, homosexuality). Why? Because they are either detrimental to marriage's implicit goal -- i.e., ensuring that wombs are used in the best possible way -- or they are irrelevant to that aim (as is homosexuality).

This is the origin of the sense that marriage conveys "legitimacy" to a sexual relationship. And it is precisely this legitimacy which homosexuals are trying to usurp through their attempts to legalize gay marriage (and not content themselves with civil unions). The problem is, however, that gay relationships by their very nature are irrelevant to this system of legitimacy. Gay men, insofar as they are men, are expendable to society: they don't have wombs that are going to waste. And since they are not impregnating women, there is no womb to tie them down to as provider husbands. Whether or not they are in committed relationships with each other is irrelevant to society. With lesbians, again, commitment is irrelevant to society when barren sexual acts are involved. In a lesbian relationship, no womb is going to be impregnated by the wrong man, there is little need to hold female hypergamy in check, and there is no male provider to tie down. The whole concept of "legitimacy" in marriage depends on something being at stake for society, but in gay marriage that is not the case. Moreover, legitimacy depends on the existence of its opposite, illegitimacy, and the stigma associated with that. Under heterosexual marriage, sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage are considered illegitimate. Are homosexuals ready to adopt that system as well? I don't think so.

Of course, some will say that this traditional form of marriage that I have described is on the way out, and that fewer and fewer people are adhering to the behavioral code implicit in this model. I agree. But people do continue to get married, and aspire to marriage, and when they do, where do they derive their idea of marriage? From this whole traditional mythology. The bride still wears virginal white (even if she's not a virgin), people prefer to get married in a church rather than city hall (even if they're not religious), there is still the expectation of "till death do us part," and so on. Traditional marriage still enjoys this cachet because marriage as it existed is one of our natural superstitions, it is the optimal and inevitable sexual arrangement given certain unchangeable features of our biology. Technological and social developments have upset this arrangement, for sure, but we still have the need to sanctify and mythologize our biological existence. It is this need to which marriage responds, and it is this profoundly rooted imagination that cannot so easily be overturned by court rulings.

^^^ Truly excellent post. Everyone should read this twice. Deep insight and well thought out. I'm actually saving your text for future reference.

I bolded what I think were the key points. I think the first part of your response bears repeating and is a good explanation of why both sides of the debate talk past each other. The gays want both the legal and anthropological definition of marriage. The wider society only wants to give them the legal definition(civil unions), but retain the cultural/anthropological definition of male/female as the social ideal. This is exactly why gays do not want civil unions. I've said this many times, but their goal isn't merely the "same rights" as heterosexuals. They want the gay marriage respected at the cultural level and they feel that pushing it onto people via the courts will force this. Their ultimate goal is that everyone embrace it as equal in every way(at the anthropological level). There was a time when gays simply wanted to be left alone. Now they've been given an inch and want a mile. They want the whole enchilada.

Quote: (05-14-2012 02:06 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Quote:gringo Wrote:

One possible explanation is that gay couples who have kids intend to become parents almost 100% of the time (since they have to go out of their way to do it through adoption, IVF, or a surrogate), whereas many children of heterosexual couples are the result of unplanned pregnancies. The result is that there are a lot of heterosexual parents out there who aren't as prepared to raise children as most gay parents. (I don't know whether this explanation actually explains the observed findings, or for that matter whether there actually is anything to be explained--to my knowledge that effect hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.)

For somebody who just lambasted emotional decision-making you sure are making this argument heated. The data show what they show, whether it agrees with your preconceived notions or not. That's why I'm not persuaded when you dismiss over 30 years of psychology literature with a sweeping statement like "They are loaded studies and the sample sizes are so small they tell you nothing" and nothing to back it up. By all means criticize the research if you want, but statements like that don't mean anything if you're not prepared to defend them with arguments and evidence.

By the way, I'd really like to hear your opinion on whether gay couples should be preferred to single people as adoptive parents. By your own argument there's direct evidence that single-parent homes produce inferior outcomes for children, but you've only been able to argue indirectly (and I believe unsuccessfully) for a similar effect in children with gay parents. All 50 states allow singles to adopt children. All else equal, surely gay couples should get ahead of them in line, right?

Not prepared to defend them with evidence? Dude, I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries. You are citing loaded studies using small samples. Im not the one holding a contradictory point of view here. You are taking the position that gender does not matter, not me. Im consistent, even when that view is unpopular or uncomfortable. You are inconsistent in your views, which means you either lack principle or you are a dimwit being led around by the short and curlies.

Save the lectures. Psychological studies and literature? Fuck the psychologists, give me crime, welfare, employment and health statistics instead thanks. Lets correlate that with family stats and see what it gives us. I trust that more than I do agenda driven academics releasing loaded studies which present the progressive outcomes they desire. Learn to tell the difference and stop trying to automatically claim moral authority by deferring to "experts" who will prop up your argument.

And no, single parent homes are equally unacceptable. Traditional, nuclear families are best, proven by demographic statistics over decades. I honestly do not give a continental fuck how offensive that is either, nor do I care for "studies" conducted to prove otherwise. Such studies tend to be intellectually dishonest, attempting to rather disprove "hate fact" more often than anything else.

Clearly though, you think you are winning this exchange. Feel free to believe so. As I say, I have bookmarked this thread for future reference. Should any of the four names I listed dare complain about the effects of feminism or the attempts to eliminate the concept of gender, Ill be pointing you back to this thread. Maybe the lecture halls you spend all day in will tolerate your contradictory beliefs, but men hang out and most men dont tolerate inconsistent behavior and bullshit.

Lets just call you four gender denialists and give you a taste of your own medicine. You were all so quick to resort to shaming tactics when you disagreed with Speakeasy it seems, lets put the ball back in your court now. Lets put you guys under the spotlight now.

Bacan, Gringo, Keyser, Old Nemisis = gender denialists

Im calling all 4 of you gender denialists. Please feel free to defend yourself now, or forever go forward with that label. You tap out, Ill assume I was right about you being a dirty gender denialist.

Look man, I'm not going to continue to engage you on this if you're going to keep eschewing facts and evidence in favor of overheated rhetoric. When you say something like "I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries" or "you are citing loaded studies using small samples," it means nothing unless you actually have something to back that up. Claims need to be defended with evidence. To my knowledge you've supplied no statistics relevant to the outcomes of children of gay adoptive parents, and you've given absolutely no support for your claim that the studies that have been conducted (and incidentally find no deficiency in outcomes) are all invalid because of "small sample sizes," even though I already specifically addressed that point. Put or shut up dude, you're not going to win this hand without cards. I've already provided multiple literature reviews and primary research articles. Ball's in your court, let's see your evidence.

I understand that you find it counterintuitive to believe that a gay couples can raise a child just as well as a straight couple can. I really do. I promise you, the point you've been making about gender roles has not fallen on deaf ears. But the fact of the matter is, if this were something that had a tangible effect on children's life prospects, we should be able to see evidence of it. People have been looking for that evidence for over 30 years, and along the way they've accumulated one of the most extensive research programs in the entire field of academic psychology. It is nowhere to be found. Sorry man, part of being rational is following the evidence wherever it leads, and if it clashes with your intuitions then so be it.

Finally, on single-parent homes: so given what you said above, and given the fact that all 50 US states allow singles to adopt children, would you support allowing gay couples to apply for adoption and receive preferential treatment to single people during the process? If what you're concerned about is the welfare of children, and if what you say about single-parent homes is true, how could you possibly justify not allowing that?

You are not reading my posts.

I already stated that I do not support single parent adoption. I also stated numerous times that given anyones involvement in this community, feigning ignorance on gender is absurd. You dont get to choose when you decide to agree with a particular ideology, you either agree or you dont. No in-between, and you certainly dont get to shame those who are consistent

As for not citing particular studies, I was clear that I am not going to spend all day posting links to articles and studies that are commonly shared across the PUA, MRA and MGTOW communities. You are bombarded with it! Its like asking me to cite studies which show being fat is really bad for your health, its the first you have heard of it. I also dont know how many times I need to talk about census figures over decades and multiple countries, but academics are gonna academic.

Your 30 years of fucking research is based on ridiculously low samples and its impossible for any rational person to take it seriously. Jesus, most countries who allow gays to adopt have not even had the legislation in place for a decade. Yet you want to completely ignore and discount decades of census, social and family statistics? You will believe loaded research and studies over god damn census figures and family statistics?

Women work harder than men - study to prove it
Women better leaders than men - study to prove it

Those were psychologists who put that together too. MUST BE TRUE!

Like I said, make damn sure you guys dont complain about feminism going forward. Gender is irrelevant in the context of your argument here, meaning you agree that its nothing more than a social construct.

Great post Naswnji! Another home run.

You took a great angle I was reluctant to take in that the natural rhythms, laws, and forces that govern and shape earth and mankind. We have lost our links to these with technology and ignorance but people still have flickrs of these traits within. This is why in public people "support" gay marriage but in the privacy of their own mind or the voters both they reject it. Why? because of the points you brought up there internal mind/spirit rejects the notion of something artificial attacking a natural societal contract in marriage.

Marriage will always be around. Humans ignorance is that we can alter and tweak the natural laws which govern society. But people and civilizations are expendable. Groups whom refused to follow natural orders perished. Simple as that. People don't realize a white wedding dress symbolizes pure virginity in women. Or that the sharing of wedding bands is a ritual that is linked to the forces of Saturn, or that the wine you drink at that wedding symbolizes the man drinking the menstral blood from the birth canal (yea Im dead serious as nasty as it sounds ). Humans think that we can change or alter these traits but they have been around for thousands of years. We can't change the natural order and the notions of being "progressive" means more in my mind decline. Legal and tech progression us different, these are human constructs that we tweak and modify to make better. But natural orders and constructs are things we can't change.

This is the type of stuff that Naswanji highlights. Humans are all connected by there internal mind/spirit which is controlled by the universe and any higher powers you believe in. It's a crazy thing when you just sit and think about it but it's fascinating and important stuff.

I seriously don't get what people are getting so riled up over this (in either faction). In my part of the world gay marriage has been around for quite some time. Most of the time I have to be reminded of it. Then I never seen the overt, flaming homosexuals here that I've seen in the US though.