equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[martha]

Originally Posted by Pearl

My question for you Martha is, why do you care what those people think? Unless I am misreading your posts, I don't see why you should be concerned about how some people see your marriage.

But to answer your question: marriage is a union between two people. It's a point where two people decide to live for someone and not just themselves. So, in that case, yes your marriage is a legitimate.

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

She's making a point that you apparently missed. She's trying to say that if her marriage is legitimate (it is), so too should gay marriages. Neither marriage will result in biological children, yet one is allowed and one isn't. This perplexes Martha. That's the point.

Philly's got it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I'm far more concerned with some of the underlying issues that have been stated on this board; it's those issues I have concerns with, and those I've addressed -- specifically, the crucial role fathers play in the family.

who's denied that fathers are important to their children?

why would you bring up such a concern in a thread about marriage equality?

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why would you bring up such a concern in a thread about marriage equality?

Actually, I didn't bring up any concern; you did. You were very specific with your question about gender roles in parenting. So... [shrug]

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

Yet, you'll take the anti side pretty consistently, hiding behind The Children.

Huh. I thought that I had actually discussed things like human biological and sociological development and quoted statistics and facts and stuff. But, you know, whatever.

This single word in this sentence says a lot. You're happy in your hegemony, secure in your majority rights, and unwilling to loosen the grasp you have.

What part of "Determining the cultural definition of what is and is not a legitimate family unit is a far more complicated matter that I'm willing to let be decided by the legal process, the legislature, and the court of public opinion. (Though I certainly have my own opinions on the subject, and have no problem sharing them.)" is difficult for you to understand? Laws change, attitudes shift, the courts amend and revise. I'm willing to submit to those. So I'm not sure what you're on about.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Actually, I didn't bring up any concern; you did. You were very specific with your question about gender roles in parenting. So... [shrug]

right. no one's answered the question -- what is it that only men can do that women cannot ever do.

sure, we all think that father's are important to their own families, but what is it about his gender -- and gender only -- that would be impossible to be filled by two women?

so, again, a week later, the question still stands.

[Pearl]

A classmate from my grad program runs a blog on Uganda news. Her most recent post is about how its Parliament is looking to pass an anti-gay bill which will criminalize homosexuality in ways that are despicable.

Homosexuality has always been illegal in Uganda, due to my favorite country’s (dated) colonial law, but this bill practically makes that draconian law look like a pride parade. (The current law classifies homosexuality as a “crime against the order of nature.”)

Some low points:
-The bill would nullify any international treaties that don’t have an explicit anti-homosexuality sentiment.
-People engaging in homosexuality will face life imprisonment. Those found spreading HIV through homosexual acts will be put to death, as will those who engage in homosexuality with minors and the disabled.
-Those with knowledge of homosexuals living in Uganda and don’t report the individual to the police within 24 hours can face three years in jail.
-Ugandans in the diaspora in gay relationships could be extradited back to Uganda and put in jail for life.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill: I Actually Speak Up � From Kampala to New York

And if you don't believe her, here's a news link:

Harper slams Uganda's anti-gay bill

Reading this makes you realize that despite not being allowed to legally marry, homosexuals have it a lot easier in the U.S. than in many parts of the world. I can only hope Ugandans wake up and realize what they are doing is totally barbaric.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

What part of "Determining the cultural definition of what is and is not a legitimate family unit is a far more complicated matter that I'm willing to let be decided by the legal process, the legislature, and the court of public opinion. (Though I certainly have my own opinions on the subject, and have no problem sharing them.)" is difficult for you to understand?

Originally Posted by nathan1977

let

You're not willing to "let" it happen, except when you're ready.


And the best part, nathan? You never answered my question.

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

I'll butt in here and ask a question that will be too hard to answer. I have no kids. I have never ever planned to have kids. We got married 20 1/2 years ago with the plan to never have kids. I'm fixed, surgically, to never have kids. They're not happening in this lifetime.

So far, we've had pages of posts about families, fathers, mothers, men, women, biology, philosophy. None of these have addressed the fact that marriages sometimes don't produce children.


The question: Is my marriage still legitimate to those posters who have decided that marriage is only for having children?

Still waiting for AEON or INDY to weigh in.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

And the best part, nathan? You never answered my question.

get in line.

[martha]

Don't you have a separate line somewhere?

[Diemen]

I'm heterosexual and I would like to have kids some day, so back of the line for both of you.

[martha]

Dammit!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by martha

Don't you have a separate line somewhere?

but it's equally long.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by martha

You're not willing to "let" it happen, except when you're ready.


And the best part, nathan? You never answered my question.

Actually, I did -- I said it didn't apply, at least to the issue I raised. Am I obligated to answer the question "why doesn't George play football" in a conversation about eating meat?

In any event, your situation reinforces my point about gender. For most people, the process of getting married revolves around making babies (at the very least creating the possibility), which -- for most -- is somewhat impossible biologically speaking without someone from the opposite sex. (When IVF is $15K a pop and adoption easily costs that much, most people still make them the old-fashioned way.) But even when you take reproduction out of the equation, the differences between the sexes still clearly matter and are recognized as having value, in and of themselves. So in a society which still legally defines marriage as one man/one woman, your marriage is still valid.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what is it about his gender -- and gender only -- that would be impossible to be filled by two women?

Besides his role in conception? (Which is kind of the starting point for fatherhood, for most people.)

Or his role in effectively raising sons, per the statistics I cited?

Or his role in modeling opposite-gender relationships for both sons and daughters?

Just off the top of my head.

Irvine, Martha, and the rest -- do you believe that there are differences between genders?

Maybe we should start there.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

For most people, the process of getting married revolves around making babies

It can, but is not defined by!!!

Even the most ignorant among us understand this.

So why are you trying to use it to define marriage now?

I can only think of one answer.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Irvine, Martha, and the rest -- do you believe that there are differences between genders?

I do, and as a heterosexual, I enjoy those differences. But I don't think those differences need to be the basis of discriminatory law.

[martha]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

So in a society which still legally defines marriage as one man/one woman, your marriage is still valid.

I win!!

I got answered!

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Or his role in effectively raising sons, per the statistics I cited?


Or his role in modeling opposite-gender relationships for both sons and daughters?

Just off the top of my head.

These statistics you keep referring to are practically meaningless for a couple of reasons.

1) You keep mentioning psychology and sociology as though you know what you're talking about. But one of the first things taught in either discipline is that correlation does not equal causation. I've given you examples of things that make those correlations spurious, and yet you keep insisting on using them.

I've read studies - not magazine articles, not dry statistics on a chart open to interpretation, but actual peer reviewed studies and academic papers that say that the key thing in helping a child through family break up is to have at least one parent consistently there for the child, and involved, even if that means setting aside their newfound ability to date and socialize for a while. The child needs a parent to be present and plugged in to parenting rather than building a new social life for themselves. Couple the failure to do this with the economics of most situations, and you have a situation much more complex than just having an absent father.

2) Say for the sake of argument that your "statistics" are completely accurate and that is the sole cause of all the harm to children that you say it is. It still doesn't matter. As long as there are allowed to be heterosexual parents of one gender heading families, then the same should be extended to homosexual families. Unless you're prepared to go to every single parent family and remove their kids, you have no argument here.

[MrsSpringsteen]

There are plenty of kids who have fathers physically present in the home but are still essentially fatherless-due to their fathers being emotionally unavailable or just not present in any way for other reasons-due to work obligations and/or choices of their own making. Just checked out in many cases, leaving the woman to essentially be a single parent. Where does that fall in these statistics? Is it just father there, check? I'd rather have any gay or lesbian parent than a straight one who is checked out. It's about the kind of parent, not the gender or sexual orientation.