|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
the conservative case for same sex marriage
Quote:
what's to dispute? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 07:55 PM
|
It's amazing how many of the points he makes are the same points that Little San Francisco™ has been making.
__________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 01:55 AM
|
Protecting marriage to protect children - latimes.com
Protecting marriage to protect children Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. By David Blankenhorn September 19, 2008 I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together. Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage. But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion. Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other. These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution." Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other. For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't? Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened! For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted. The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict? Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children. Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support. David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage." |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 07:55 PM
|
Many of the points in your posted article are refuted by Irvine's, nathan. And I get the feeling we already went into quite some depth on Mother and father vs. 2 stable parents in the previous thread.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:55 PM
|
Yes, but now it's said by a "liberal Democrat"
![]() Actually this article was posted a long time ago and the truth came out about David Blankenhorn, he's not liberal nor a Democrat. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,743
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
Quote:
Non-sarcastic translation: a year is a drop in the bucket in academic terms, and hardly qualifies one to speak with any degree of authority. Quote:
Nathan, if you see this, not a slam on you at all. Maybe you were busy and didn't have time to respond. I was just curious as to your reaction to my points, but you sort of dropped out of the conversation after that. I was a little disappointed by that. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:55 PM
|
Quote:
These highlighted sentences sound like they were written by someone with a mental deficiency. Seriously. What a jackass the author of this article is. His opinions are based on horribly unintelligent logic. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:55 PM
|
Irvine, your comment, "let's be honest: there's no actual argument against same-sex marriage beyond straight-up, in-your-face animus and hostility towards gay people," makes it clear you don't think debate is possible on this subject. Besides, neither you nor I probably have anything new to say on the issue apart from commenting on developments of the day such as which state voted down same-sex marriage or which courts decided to make law this time.
Your shtick is the Progressive shtick. There is no intellectual argument to be made against same-sex marriage, or any other part of the Progressive or liberal agenda, because none exists. That's the whole condescending premise of the book 'What's The Matter With Kansas.' There is Progressive Thought and than there are the Red State rubes who can't be trusted to act or make decisions in their own best interest. In summary, dissent from Progressive Thought can only be based on fear or ignorance and democratic self-determination and traditions must be in harmony with the Progressive Worldview to be legitimate. Nor are there any political or legal arguments to make as Progressives always frame their agenda in the language of "rights." Every worker has a right to a living wage. Abortion is a right. Health care is a right. And same-sex marriage is a right and opposition to it is no different than opposition to mixed marriages 50 years ago. "Rights," of course, aren't up for vote or debate. As I've said several times, I don't bemoan your attempts to move society in a direction that you see as forward. That IS your right. I've tried to understand your point of view when you've argued intelligently and I've excused the occasional pejorative when you've argued out of passion or frustration. What I do regret is that you and your FYM supporters have come to the conclusion that decent people in a country as large and diverse as ours can't simply disagree on the issue. Call me wrong, not hateful. Until that changes I see no reason to waste my time. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,743
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
This crap gets repeated constantly and it just drives me up the wall.
INDY do you have any comprehension at all as to what the common law system is about? Like even a little? Is it that you are fundamentally opposed to common law and would prefer to have a civil system like the French? |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:55 PM
|
And what I regret is that you, haven't always argured from an intellectual point of view rather very pointed homophopic slurs at times, some generally others personally. So I have a hard time saying you are just wrong. And yours slurs have been documented so it's not like you can act innocent and play the victim.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
Quote:
as Olson says: Quote:
and Nathan, again, please, tell me, why do the children need "protection" from Memphis and myself? and let's just be honest, Nathan: your positions are anti-family and anti-child. you are presenting, as ever, a fundamentally bigoted argument that harms the fabric of society by imagining a perceived threat presented by some minority group, and then you're arguing that this menace needs to be sanctioned. you know, like it's Europe and the 1920s. and, hate to break it to you, but Blankenhorn has changed his position: Quote:
note that even Blankenhorn dropped the "think of the children" argument and instead made his case on religious freedom, i.e., the freedom to be a bigot because God tells you to. when, Nathan, are you going to drop the "children" argument? if you'd like to argue against same-sex adoption, please go ahead and do so. but i think we all know that it cannot be tied to marriage in any sort of intellectually honest way. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
Quote:
i am talking about SSM here. no, there is no logical argument against SSM that isn't rooted in straight-up bigotry. i see no point in conceding anything other than your right to disagree. i see no merit in the arguments put forth, and you'll note that you never have anything of substance to say on this discussion, you merely make broad, sweeping complaints about how, you know, it's gay people who are really intolerant. if there's an intellectual argument to be made, go ahead and do so. we've all been waiting a long time to hear one. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 07:55 PM
|
Quote:
If someone were actively trying to prevent your access to equal rights under the law, with no convincing argument beyond "that's what I believe," I think you'd see through it to the bigotry pretty easily. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,602
Local Time: 06:55 PM
|
Quote:
This is a reasonable middle ground. Perhaps Blankenhorn does have some liberal influences in his background, after all. As long as we are going to have religion, we are going to have 'guilt free' discrimination. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:55 PM
|
This issue illustrates two things:
Religious discrimination is a two day street. Pious dogma isn't confined to religion. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 08:55 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
Quote:
so the legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to religious discrimination? please, challenge the dogma. i feel in semi-retirement from FYM, but i am going to keep posting on this issue for a few reasons: 1. it is, obviously, deeply personal to me, and the further along in our relationship Memphis and i progress, the more i realize just how powerful the institution of marriage actually is. 2. one can't find a better example of the scapegoating and the baseless fear-mongering -- i.e., if the gays get married, straight families will self destruct -- in this century. it's amazing how history replicates itself and how, once again, a "passable" minority group is being assumed to pose some sort of ill-defined menace to the majority, and to society as a whole 3. i can't think of anything else that will help gay people -- easily the most despised minority group in the world -- more than access to an institution that will tell them, yes, you are worthy, you are good enough, you are not an error or a mistake or defective. they say this case probably won't make it to the SCOTUS until the fall of 2011. i still fear losing, because the court is clearly conservative, and i think the justices fear upsetting social norms too much. still, i think that airing out these arguments is a good thing, because we realize just how little the other side has. fear and prejudice and the oft-talked about "ick factor" might still prove to powerful. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 34,032
Local Time: 09:55 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 08:55 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposition 8 discussion continued | yolland | Free Your Mind | 797 | 03-03-2009 02:09 PM |
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage | phillyfan26 | Free Your Mind Archive | 1002 | 11-08-2008 03:23 PM |
Rate my album collection. | shart1780 | Lemonade Stand Archive | 75 | 02-14-2008 12:07 AM |
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue | Headache in a Suitcase | Free Your Mind Archive | 130 | 04-15-2003 08:48 PM |