Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Tactics against big Prop. 8 backer go too far at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by mytmouse57 Again, saying the fact that some people either can't procreate or lose the ability to procreate ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2010, 02:13 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Tactics against big Prop. 8 backer go too far

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57 View Post
Again, saying the fact that some people either can't procreate or lose the ability to procreate as they age makes the procreative aspect of sex or hetrosexual marriage irrelevant is like trying to argue that because some people are born blind/with very poor eyesight -- or that large numbers of people will develop problems with eyesight as they age, then the overall and underlying purpose for the eyes isn't really to see.
I think you don't recognize how that analogy actually applies.

First of all, "the purpose of the eyes" is pretty clear cut.
Claiming that sex is only about procreation is VASTLY missing the boat. It has obvious recreational and couple binding aspects that should not be ignored.

Secondly, the real point of your analogy should be recognizing that if we were to say that "marriage" relied on the eyes seeing, then those that cannot see should not be able to marry.
You allow heterosexual blind people to marry without question. Without hesitation.
You block all homosexuals as blind from marrying because they are blind.

THAT is the fundamental problem with your approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
The underlying/overall purpose for the sex drive in the human species is procreation. You can't get around that... and that makes homosexuality, by defualt -- abnormal.
That is ONE OF the purposes.
It is not the exclusive purpose.

When most sexual interactions occur with the explicit desire to NOT procreate, it kind of puts a hole in your theory.
When you have people who CANNOT procreate who still have a sex drive, it puts a hole in your theory.
When you have women who are already pregnant experiencing a HEIGHTENED sex drive, it kind of puts a hole in your theory.
When you have the sex drive being satisfied in a variety of ways that have NO procreative capability, like masturbation, protected sex, sex with somebody who cannot procreate, oral sex, ...
What we end up with is your theory looking like swiss cheese.

Furthermore, let's say that we have a knife which we declare has the purpose of cutting bread.
Somebody uses it as a screwdriver.
Does that make the use as such "abnormal"?
Such classifications are pointless.

I find it interesting how you take a CONSTITUTIONAL principle like equal protection and equality for all, and you declare them as trivial ...
... but when it comes to a standard like "normal", you pretend that has supremacy...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
As for biological parents vs. gay parents, a blended family (which is what my family is) adoption, and so on. It has already been pointed out to you that natural, opposite sex biological parents provide children with things the other arangements will N.E.V.E.R. be able to provide them.
"it has already been CLAIMED" is more accurate...
... and this claim has been disproven.
I have already documented MOUNDS of research comparing straight parent couples to gay parent couples, and NONE of them show any advantage for straight parent couples.

So you can repeat what you believe all you want...
But it is disproven by research!


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
*Direct and regular access to the biological parent/child bond and direct access to a natural, opposite-gender parent.
Do you even realize when you say something thoroughly pointless?
I could just as easily say that straight couple parents lack "Direct and regular access to TWO parents of the same gender".
And as for "biological", that's fairly irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
That is the fatal flaw in the arguments you keep trying to bring up whenever we have these discussions. Your entire premise rests upon acting as if the biological parent/child bond and the significant differences between the genders (and hence, the significant qualities each gender brings to the parenting table that the other does not have) don't exist.
Suppose I were to start hyping up a "fatal flaw" in some parents who don't allow the child to own a cat.
And the absence of this cat-relationship is a FATAL FLAW because it lacks the human-pet bond...

Rational people would recognize "so what"?
But some people put too much focus on biology to the extent that they ASSUME it means something when it is essentially pretty trivial.

When all the kids in the class have a G.I. Joe doll, and one kid doesn't, he thinks it's pretty darn important to have one.
But as for the child's development, is there any real detriment to him not having one?
NO!

You can't get past your assumption that it must be important.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
I'm sorry, but those things do exist as rock-solid fact -- burned indelibly into humanity, human biology and the human experience. There is no way over, around, under or through that.
And human-pet bonds exist as well!
So let's refuse to recognize marriage because the couple doesn't have a pet for the child.
Cause those human-pet bonds EXIST darnit!


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
I'm not saying that the other options, including gay parenting, aren't viable.
I've never, ever once said gay familys don't work and some gays aren't doing their part to bring up children. I have gays in my extended family that are doing just that, for Christ's sake. So, for once, try paying attention to what I'm actually arguing, instead of what you think I'm arguing, or what you want me to be arguing in order to validate your point of view.
I think it's you who isn't recognizing what I am saying.
I am not saying that gays are just viable.

I am saying that children of gay parents are JUST AS HAPPY AND HEALTHY as children of straight parents.
Lacking a biological father is not detrimental to the child.

So it's you who isn't recognizing MY arguments.
You keep saying that "biological bonds exist".
What you fail to recognize is that there exists a bond between mother and child REGARDLESS of whether or not "biology" exists.

The distinctions you point to just do not matter like you believe they must.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
I'm saying the intact biological family is the ideal -- and trying to deny that is just plain foolish, and frankly, is almost always couched in adults trying to feel better about themselves, instead of what is really, truely best for children.
Right there you just mixed two standards, pretending they are interchangeable.
ideal vs "best for children"

"Ideal" is based on people's opinions, regardless of actual facts.
And as I have pointed out, the facts disprove pretenses of "ideal" being superior.

"best for children" is something I have repeatedly addressed.
The research PROVES that children of gay parents grow up just as happy and healthy as children of straight parents.
You claim "best"?
THEN PROVE IT by showing how the child actually has a measurable detriment.

STOP pointing to a missing G.I. Joe doll or a missing pet, and START PROVING IMPACT upon the child's life by having a gay parents instead of straight parents.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
As the ideal, the intact, biological family has been given special status and privledge. It has been held up and protected for a reason.
Yeah.
And a few decades ago, WHITE was the "ideal"...
That's what you don't get about this.
You keep using SUBJECTIVE and HYPOCRITICAL standards, and as a free society that prizes equal rights and justice, that is just not acceptable for GOVERNMENTAL standards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
As far as marriage being a "right." Yes, in the legal sense, in our country it is.
But in actual meaning, I don't think it is. I think it is a privledge and very serious undertaking of duty to something larger, beyond and more important than yourself and your own desires.

In the geometric sense, our planet is essentially spherical in shape.
But in "actual meaning", some people don't think it is. They think it's a square instead...
< end sarcasm >

There is no point in dealing with this double-talk.
Marriage IS A RIGHT.
I recognize YOU have a personal opinion whereby you want it to be classified as a privilege, but we're talking about the GOVERNMENTAL standards here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Many of us hetrosexuals have made an awful mess of that privledge and duty. I certainly hope that, as the legal right is extended to gays -- we all do a better job of giving it due respect.
Otherwise, all we're doing is hurting kids and making divorce lawyers rich.
And I appreciate that.
Part of my fervor on this is that a LOT of your arguments are arguments that are repeated by the anti-gay groups in their desire to preclude gay rights, including gay marriage.

I fight the arguments on principle. Because most people who make these types of arguments do not hold that overall desire in mind.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2010, 09:19 AM
mytmouse57's Avatar
Aide
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wyoming
Gender: Male
Posts: 289
Thanks: 0
Thanked 158 Times in 102 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to mytmouse57
Default Re: Tactics against big Prop. 8 backer go too far

You over-complicate things in order to rationalize your point of view.
I never said procreation was the only reason people have sex. I've said it's the only reason we have a sex drive in the first place. Therefore, hetrosexual attractions and acts of sexuality align with the actual reason we have a sex drive. It does not matter whether those sex acts are done for the express purpose of making a baby, purley for fun, or anything in between. They still align themselves with the underlying reason why the sex drive is there to begin with. Also, the reactions of the body to sexual excitement and sexual climax clearly represent an attempt by the body to procreate, again, regardless of the motive of the people engaged in the sex. For example, a man's body will ejaculate semen containing sperm, regarless of whether he is doing it with his wife in order to try to get her pregnant, screwing purley for fun -- or even just jerking off all by himself. His body is still trying to procreate, regardless of what his mind and personal desires are doing. His body is reacting to the underlying purpose for his having a sex drive in the first place.

Homosexual attraction and sex acts take it exacly in the opposite direction, away from the underlying purpose of the sex drive.
Homosexuality is, therefore, abnormal by default.

As for infertile, post-menopausal couples, or hetro couple who never intend to have children getting married, that's almost a seperate issue, IMO. Like it or not, all that still falls within marriage between men and a women. There is no need to completely and radically re-define marriage in our society in order to allow such couples to marry. Sanctioning homosexuality through marriage does just that -- radically and fundamentaly re-defines marriage. Hence, many people oppose it.

As to your continued insistance that research and science somehow "prove" there is nothing special about biological parenting and the biological family -- I see two major problems with that.

First, the "science" involved is "soft" or social science. Which is very new, and fairly arbitrary. We're not talking physics or chemistry here. I don't think a few softball conclusions from the social sciences are quite enough to turn thousands and thousands of years of the reality of the human condition upon its head.
And society and our social institutions recognize that. Hence, social services and the courts will remove a child from their biological parents only as last resort. Every effort will be made to keep children with their natural parents because, again, all the experts involved recognize the grave implications of removing a child from his or her natural parents.

Secondly, the very science you tout also clearly recognizes the importance of the very things I'm talking about -- the biological parent-child bond, and the importance of the presense of an opposite-gender parent in the household. As much research has been done on gay parenting, reams and volumes more has been done on the importance of those two factors. Simply google such things as "adopted children search for biological parents" or "the importance of a father in a girls' life", and you're likey to get more peer-reviewed, scientific information than you could read in ten years.

Again, the fact is, your arguments hinge upon pretending that the biological parent-child bond and the differences between the genders simply don't exist, or aren't really relevant. And the irony is, the very science you tout disagrees with you.

Gay parenting is a viable option. I'm not arguing with you on that. I've never said I oppose gay marriage or gay parenting. I don't.

But to say it could ever fully replace the intact biological family in terms of overall quality and value to society is just plain ignorant and foolish. And that is why many people continue to oppose gay marriage -- they see the weaknesses in the arguments trying to make it a matter of "equality." There simply is no "equality" to argue.

Stick with the legal side of the argument, and the battle for gay marriage is won.
__________________
The early bird gets the worm -- but the second mouse gets the cheese.

The greatest thing about dogs is that everything they do is the coolest thing they've ever done.

Love might be what makes a family... but it's food that makes them stick around.

Last edited by mytmouse57; 02-09-2010 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2010, 11:17 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Tactics against big Prop. 8 backer go too far

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57 View Post
You over-complicate things in order to rationalize your point of view.
No.
I apply simple standards of EQUAL APPLICATION to prevent you from applying standards in an obviously hypocritical manner.
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the simple observations I am making are AT THE CORE of why the younger generation is rejecting the prejudices of the old.
They reject the double-standards and hypocrisy.
They reject the insistence on blind assumptions with no proof.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
I never said procreation was the only reason people have sex. I've said it's the only reason we have a sex drive in the first place. Therefore, hetrosexual attractions and acts of sexuality align with the actual reason we have a sex drive.
Do you even realize how you make assumptions upon assumptions, and then use your convenient assumptions to justify your circular-logic conclusions?

You claim there is only one reason we have a sex drive.
Prove it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
It does not matter whether those sex acts are done for the express purpose of making a baby, purley for fun, or anything in between.
At least not for those heterosexuals.
But as for those gays, they better make darn tootin' sure that their sex acts have to have a procreative capability...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Also, the reactions of the body to sexual excitement and sexual climax clearly represent an attempt by the body to procreate, again, regardless of the motive of the people engaged in the sex. For example, a man's body will ejaculate semen containing sperm, regarless of whether he is doing it with his wife in order to try to get her pregnant, screwing purley for fun -- or even just jerking off all by himself. His body is still trying to procreate, regardless of what his mind and personal desires are doing. His body is reacting to the underlying purpose for his having a sex drive in the first place.
Again, it boggles my mind watching you explain this...
You have absolutely no scientific training, do you.

You're looking at phenomenon whereby you insist on ONE PURPOSE, and then you attempt to point to OTHER ACTS that satisfy the drive, ABSENT that purpose, and then INSIST that the one purpose has been substantiated by this act...

It would be like claiming that water always moves towards the ocean.
You then point to some water spilled on the ground that moves down the side-walk and into a grass-yard.
And then you claim that the fact that the water moved supposedly PROVES that it was moving towards an ocean...

It makes NO sense!


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Homosexual attraction and sex acts take it exacly in the opposite direction, away from the underlying purpose of the sex drive.
Homosexuality is, therefore, abnormal by default.
No more so than oral sex or masturbation or sex with a woman past menopause or sex with condoms or ...

The only thing you're doing is trying to justify this standard of prejudice by the menial reply of *at least he's having sex with a girl*.
You IGNORE the procreative standard completely in ...
... with absolutely no surprise ...
... ONCE AGAIN EXCLUDING STRAIGHTS from your standard.

It would be like saying "Well, the white person may not be literate but at least he's voting proper as God intended"


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
As for infertile, post-menopausal couples, or hetro couple who never intend to have children getting married, that's almost a seperate issue, IMO. Like it or not, all that still falls within marriage between men and a women.
Don't you get it?
I UNDERSTAND "it falls within marriage between man and a woman".
THAT is something you are NOT prejudiced against, so you IGNORE it...

Again, it's like saying "That white man can't read, but at least he's a white man voting instead of a black man".

YES. WE UNDERSTAND you are prejudicially preferring the heterosexuals REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY VIOLATE THE STANDARDS you talk about.
If you can't come up with a better excuse other than "but at least they're straight", then don't bother!


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
There is no need to completely and radically re-define marriage in our society in order to allow such couples to marry. Sanctioning homosexuality through marriage does just that -- radically and fundamentaly re-defines marriage. Hence, many people oppose it.
Many people oppose it out of prejudice.
In fact, MOST people who oppose gay marriage do so out of prejudice...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
As to your continued insistance that research and science somehow "prove" there is nothing special about biological parenting and the biological family -- I see two major problems with that.
ROFLMAO!
You know what is truly funny about your response.
The burden of proof should be on you for you to provide any proof of your claims.
But you don't.
You CANNOT.
You don't seem to get that EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH ARTICLE showing gays as equally capable parents demonstrates something pretty huge.
I mean, if your stance had ANY truth to it, don't you think that SOMEBODY would be able to point to SOMETHING and say "Well, this one study shows that gay parents raise kids who go to jail more often" or SOMETHING...

I mean, MOST issues can get conflicting science.
Man-made green-house effect. You can find evidence on both sides.
Power lines cause health problems. You can find evidence on both sides.

It's not just the mounds of evidence on our side that shows our case.
It is the complete and utter lack of research proving your claims that I find amazing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
First, the "science" involved is "soft" or social science.
The funny thing about this tact?
You're shooting yourself in the foot!

You're trying to tell people that kids raised by gays are worse off, and then you turn around and belittle your very own claim with comments like the above...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2010, 11:18 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Tactics against big Prop. 8 backer go too far

Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
I don't think a few softball conclusions from the social sciences are quite enough to turn thousands and thousands of years of the reality of the human condition upon its head.
And this is another logical fallacy I see time and time again...
The attempt to pretend that a practice EXISTING for "thousands and thousands of years" somehow proves it is superior to another practice.
Heck! We have practiced misogynistic deprivation of women's suffrage for "thousands and thousands of years", so let's all assume that's better than allowing women the right to vote...



Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
And society and our social institutions recognize that. Hence, social services and the courts will remove a child from their biological parents only as last resort. Every effort will be made to keep children with their natural parents because, again, all the experts involved recognize the grave implications of removing a child from his or her natural parents.
Again, talk about self-justifying claims.
The reason we refuse to allow women and blacks the right to vote for all those years is cause we knew giving them the chance to vote they would all just screw it up...

It is hilarious how you attempt to claim the research done is "soft science", and then you turn around and insist that general practices somehow provide proof of anything other than the existence of a standard.
Again, just because a method has been practiced for a long time DOES NOT SHOW IT IS BETTER than another method.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Secondly, the very science you tout also clearly recognizes the importance of the very things I'm talking about -- the biological parent-child bond, and the importance of the presense of an opposite-gender parent in the household. As much research has been done on gay parenting, reams and volumes more has been done on the importance of those two factors.
Prove it.
Provide RELEVANT and TOPICAL proof.
Don't just tell me to "google" junk.
The impetus is not on me to prove your ideas as you repeatedly misrepresent research.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Simply google such things as "adopted children search for biological parents" or "the importance of a father in a girls' life", and you're likey to get more peer-reviewed, scientific information than you could read in ten years.
1) "adopted children search for biological parents".
There you go again.
ASSUMING the convenient conclusion based on whatever your desires are...
Our society places undue emphasis on biological parents.
Kids pick that up and repeat that behavior.

If you were to stop and think about it, you would realize how that is the REAL cause of the phenomenon...
Suppose we scientifically PROVED that goat's milk was somehow better for kids than cow's milk. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Then suppose we gave one group of kids nothing but cow's milk. They have never even tasted goat's milk, and nobody's told them about it.
By your approach, we would assume that these kids would crave goat's milk because it was better...

Pretty silly, huh...
But that is EXACTLY what you are doing in pretending that people crave biological parents because they are supposedly better...

2) "the importance of a father in a girls' life"
I've already talked about this.
These studies cover SINGLE MOTHER PARENTS and compare them to dual parent (mother-father) households.
Show me ANY study that compared DUAL LESBIAN mother parents to mother-father households, and then we'll talk!
Except we both know you can't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Again, the fact is, your arguments hinge upon pretending that the biological parent-child bond and the differences between the genders simply don't exist, or aren't really relevant. And the irony is, the very science you tout disagrees with you.
And without quoting ANY science at all, violating numerous scientific standards and employing endless circular logic, you insist I have defied science...
(And let's not forget that you just criticized science earlier as well, but now you insist I shouldn't ignore it... )

Tell you what.
Why don't you give JUST ONE study you want to discuss.
Pick the best one and we'll talk about it.
STOP CLAIMING what science has shown and PROVE your claims...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
Gay parenting is a viable option. I'm not arguing with you on that. I've never said I oppose gay marriage or gay parenting. I don't.
But to say it could ever fully replace the intact biological family in terms of overall quality and value to society is just plain ignorant and foolish.
I am not saying anything about "fully replacing".
I am saying that gay parenting is JUST AS GOOD AS "biological family" parenting.

Why is it that EVERY research article comparing kids of gay parents to kids of straight parents show them to be just as happy and healthy if what you claim is true?


Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57
And that is why many people continue to oppose gay marriage -- they see the weaknesses in the arguments trying to make it a matter of "equality." There simply is no "equality" to argue.
It's like the race and gender thing all over again.
People tell themselves stories to try to justify to themselves why one group is inferior to the other.
NONE of it is based on science.

And EVEN WHEN the black man can read, he is STILL prevented...

If "parenting capability" is TRULY to be used as a standard for allowing marriage, THEN LET US INSTITUTE THAT STANDARD!
Straight parents who are crappy? They don't get to marry.
Gay parents who excel? They are allowed to marry!

Once again, you present a standard and IGNORE THE REALITY of the preferred group who do not qualify under that standard, and always exclude the prejudiced group including those who excel PAST that standard.

This is why the anti-gay movement is losing.
Over and over and over again, you insist on standards that are NEVER APPLIED to the preferred population...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
against, backer, big, far, prop, tactics, too

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0