homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: A new Christian line on gay marriage (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: A new Christian line on gay marriage
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Hi Johnny, thanks for the reply. I live on the edge of the central business district in Cape Town. I think the mood regarding the RWC ended up being okay, the team was welcomed home in a positive way. The team's coach quit of his own accord (apparently), so there was no chance for anyone to have heads roll. In SA rugby, all is well and dandy until a loss, and suddenly the coach just has to go.

Back to the topic though. I'm going to assume from what Eliab wrote that your position regarding same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general is non-negotiable, in the sense that it stops at "God thinks it's a good idea to ... and not a good idea to ...".

Please excuse the mini-essay that follows.

I think the question of how one's sincerely held beliefs should influence your interaction with (mostly) secular society is an interesting one, one which I'm very happy to discuss.

I do have a deeply visceral response to someone deciding that, through action or inaction, severely constraining my freedom (or keeping it constrained, depending on jurisdiction) to care for my partner, and the ability of friends to care for their children, is justified if they have a belief that God just says so. This is not intended as a snark, it is necessary to point out the immense importance this has for LGBT people (repeatedly if needed) and the insecurity many of us face when dealing with a generally unsympathetic, often hostile, world. I would like to ask you to consider that, at very least, a higher level of theological discomfort for yourself might be the Christian response in a case where the stakes are this high for someone else. This discussion isn't about some hypothetical future where same-sex couples may in good conscience make lifelong commitments to each other or dare to raise a family, these are already realities and you may choose to make life more difficult for us and our families if you really think God wants you to (again, through action or inaction).

What we don't need is someone telling us that it is a shame that we have to exist and they wish it didn't have to be like that. What people often miss in all this is that, despite the challenges we face in order to obtain anything close to the security others take for granted, *it is worth it*, so very, very worth it. We and those close to us know this at the deepest level. Perhaps "God says" is sometimes found in the stories of the people who are actually most affected by the theories of others. I would very much like to include the witness of transgender people on this point too (Cupbearer, I apologise for not having interacted with your posts up to now, I've appreciated reading them).

It is often forgotten that there was a time when Christians had very little but their own witness to win friends in a hostile world that derided them. (In some places, this is still the case). With the usual warnings about quotes on the internet, here is a quote from the Wikipedia page on the persecution of Christians within the Roman empire:

quote:
In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:

How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?"

What kept them going through this time was the quiet knowledge that they had seen and been given something wonderful, though few would believe them at the time. Like them, I can only say that I have seen and been given something wonderful. Many LGBT people like me, or in some ways unlike me, share this deep and abiding peace that somehow makes us able to speak truth to power. You may choose to ignore us, and say that at best we are delusional, but how many of us must bear witness before you really listen?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

The result of such thinking is that faith only has a part to play in our private lives. Hence Christianity becomes a leisure pursuit."

Perhaps it is a good idea to point out that Christianity in our private lives goes beyond our immediate family, even though it is often tempting to think about our faith in individualistic terms. The church, as an organisation, is a society within society at large. It is a place where Christian values (as perceived by each tradition) are, hopefully, practised. Calling it a leisure pursuit may be unnecessarily trivialising the great importance of the social network formed by the church. It is also, perhaps, the greatest tool by which a Christian tradition may influence old and new members in a way that doesn't unfairly constrain different-believers. If a church organisation is large, then it will by itself have a large effect on the lives of many people (the RCC springs to mind), even on an international level. If it is small, well, perhaps it shouldn't yet have sway over many people? I'm reluctant to throw LGBT individuals in your tradition under the bus though, but ultimately this is the level where "God says" is most on solid ground.

Essentially, I think what you actually want is best placed within the context of evangelisation. It should be remembered that, what influence the Church has in this world stems from some past act of evangelisation. This has been no influence-lite(tm).

However, I also think it doesn't have to end there, I'd just like your opinion on this point before diving into something else in an already bloated post. With this, I just wanted to point out an existing strength the Church has which may go overlooked. Actual political interaction does become much more complicated in the practical details, since it depends strongly on the political system you find yourself in, as well as how you wish to translate your beliefs into concrete effects in society (as I understand it, you don't wish to impose your beliefs on others, which makes this interaction quite tricky and full of tradeoffs).

(dives into a last bit regardless)

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

I think that having a child is a gift not a right. I do not understand why God chooses to deny that gift to some who desperately want it but he does.

Yes and no. While I have sympathy for the sentiment that a child is a gift and not a right, this often crops up when someone doesn't want *them* to raise children (waves dismissively at huge, diverse group of people). It is essentially a form of emotional blackmail. These people have trouble with something, must be because God hates them and doesn't want them to do it, I think we should let them know. You clearly are sympathetic to infertile heterosexual couples, and don't think twice about it being good and even noble for them to seek at very least adoption (if not surrogacy) because "something has gone wrong". Not allowing the same for same-sex couples betrays a curious double standard on the part of God if this "access denied" message is taken as the gold standard for whether someone may raise children or not.
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can come back to this now and answer it as follows:

'Because God said so' works rather better if you don't stop the sentence there, but continue on with 'and here's why he said it'.

If you mean that generally we should say this, then I quite agree.

However, if you are making an absolute statement then surely you have just made God redundant since we can work out how to live entirely without his help?

Any good parent wants their children to grow and ultimately stand on their own feet. Any good craftsman wants to create things that need as little maintainance and oversight as possible. Unless they are simply trying to give themselves a job for life.

If God really did fail to give us any sort of moral sensibility that we can use ourselves, that is a reflection on how mean in spirit the Creator is. How much he wants us intellectually and morally crippled rather than able to grow and develop.

And it also demonstrates how little God cares about morality that God wouldn't give us tools to work moral issues out in other directions than direct revalation. If God's only reason for Creation was to be worshipped then this is one thing (and says really bad things about the nature of God). If God cares about morality then producing more than one sufficient way to get to a sane morality is the only sensible thing to do. This is not the same as making God redundant.

And as far as I can see you've been ducking my comments about why you should support gay adoption if your beliefs are as you claim.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And the main danger of sexual abuse is from heterosexual men. Mum's new boyfriend or husband. Grandad. Uncle John. Refusing to allow homosexual marriage does nothing to protect against this.

I'm glad that you didn't say, Uncle Johnny.

I'm not aware that any studies about child abuse have mentioned sexual orientation. On what are you basing this assumption?

Is it because you assume that men who have lived with women must be heterosexual? In which case I should point out that we are currently discussing gay couples bringing up their own children.

Or were you just referring to the fact that something like 97% of men are heterosexual?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks Frisky. Glad to hear life in CT is as good as usual.

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
This discussion isn't about some hypothetical future where same-sex couples may in good conscience make lifelong commitments to each other or dare to raise a family, these are already realities and you may choose to make life more difficult for us and our families if you really think God wants you to (again, through action or inaction).

Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.

My concerns are to do with the state recognising gay couples as a nuclear family.

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:

You may choose to ignore us, and say that at best we are delusional, but how many of us must bear witness before you really listen?

A good reminder about church history frisky. I agree that the church is usually at her best when she has the least amount of political power.

However, are you assuming here that 'really listen' and 'agree with' are synonyms?

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:

Actual political interaction does become much more complicated in the practical details, since it depends strongly on the political system you find yourself in, as well as how you wish to translate your beliefs into concrete effects in society (as I understand it, you don't wish to impose your beliefs on others, which makes this interaction quite tricky and full of tradeoffs).

You are quite right.

Eliab has described my position fairly well. If I really believed that God was arbitrary or capricious then my religious beliefs could remain entirely private. However, if I believe that he has ordered heterosexual families for the good of creation it seems very inconsistent and uncaring of me to keep quiet about it.

In short, you are right to say that I'm caught - it feels as if I'm being forced between two options I reject ... namely either try to impose my religious beliefs on society or deny my Christian faith. I reject both options.

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:

You clearly are sympathetic to infertile heterosexual couples, and don't think twice about it being good and even noble for them to seek at very least adoption (if not surrogacy) because "something has gone wrong". Not allowing the same for same-sex couples betrays a curious double standard on the part of God if this "access denied" message is taken as the gold standard for whether someone may raise children or not.

I don't see a double standard here. I'm saying that I think surrogacy is out for both heterosexual or homosexual couples. Gay couples could go to the doctor asking for help in conceiving too, but I'm not sure he/she will be able to be much help.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Orwell
Apprentice
# 16615

 - Posted      Profile for Orwell   Email Orwell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
IngoB: As much as I'd love to tear you a new one right now, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be His Noodly Appendage, Would Really Rather Us Not Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. We should Eat, Then Go After The Bastards. As I am busy, I cannot, so I will get to you later.

A tangent: What the hell does being gay have to do with Christianity?

Posts: 29 | From: Cloudcuckooland | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
hosting

Orwell, as you are new, you should understand that the board for that kind of post is the Hell Board

quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

Placing other posters among 'The Bastards' does not belong on non-Hell boards.

Louise

Dead Horses Host*

hosting

* I would have left this to Tony as I have posted on this thread further up, but as I cant see him around, I'll put this in as a stop gap.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.

My concerns are to do with the state recognising gay couples as a nuclear family.

But I honestly wonder how you can say on the one hand, civil-partnership-recognition is fine, but then on the other hand 'don't recognise a gay couple as a family'??

I suppose this comes back to your notion that marriage is about child-raising? Which, as previously pointed out, bears no relationship to the current secular law. Marriages without children (and children without marriages) are considered perfectly feasble.

If you want to go down the road of labelling 'couples' with civil partnership and 'families' with marriage, then surely the logical path you have to go down is that a proportion of heterosexual couples ought also be shunted into the 'civil partnership' category, rather than dividing into the two categories purely on the basis of sexuality/gender.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose this comes back to your notion that marriage is about child-raising? Which, as previously pointed out, bears no relationship to the current secular law. Marriages without children (and children without marriages) are considered perfectly feasible.

That is a fair point but I don't think it is as clear cut as that.

My understanding is that the debate back in 2004 in Australia was not over how the current legislation defined marriage but more about what the current legislation assumed.

You'd know better than me the legal quagmire we have entered into. I agree that my position is fraught with problems. However, I think that we are in a mess at the moment generally. In my mind I keep coming back to the Is --> Ought question. IMHO both sides of the debate move far to quickly from the indicative to the imperative.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, but no-one's ever indicated a crisis over childless heterosexual couples, such as that the Marriage Act needs to be amended to insert something explicit about children or families into it to combat an alternative, non-family-based reading. It simply hasn't happened. We're all WELL aware that there are childless marriages out there, and society doesn't appear to be the least bit bothered by it or felt the need to clarify the meaning of the Marriage Act.

Which means that the angst over gay marriage cannot be sensibly portrayed as 'marriage is for families'. There isn't the slightest sign that anyone thinks that marriage should be reserved for baby-makers/family-raisers until gay couples appear on the scene, whereupon people seize upon the first obvious difference between a gay couple and a straight one. A distinction that holds up for all of 5 minutes.

The angst over gay marriage is purely and simply over its gayness. Trying to turn it into being about families and children just ignores the reality that society doesn't give a fig whether or not a heterosexual couple is having or plans to have children.

[ 10. November 2011, 03:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
PS When I say 'society', that includes otherwise conservative and vocal lobby groups. I can find plenty of agitation about gay marriage. But I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, anywhere advocating law reform on this issue, ie saying that intentionally childless marriages should be prevented. The family/children theory only EVER appears while talking about gay couples. It has no independent impetus.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.

For various reasons, I think we can, and should, do much better. The problem with your sentiment, appreciated though it is, is that while you don't mind it if same-sex couples make lifelong commitments to each other, you nonetheless are content to leave us in the legal quagmire that is the civil partnership. You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Eliab has described my position fairly well. If I really believed that God was arbitrary or capricious then my religious beliefs could remain entirely private. However, if I believe that he has ordered heterosexual families for the good of creation it seems very inconsistent and uncaring of me to keep quiet about it.

In short, you are right to say that I'm caught - it feels as if I'm being forced between two options I reject ... namely either try to impose my religious beliefs on society or deny my Christian faith. I reject both options.

In the end, I would ask you to consider that, while you have a picture of how the world *ought* to be, you have the responsibility of dealing with the world as it actually *is* in a way that isn't stingy towards those of us who don't fit into this vision. I'm not sure how a minority of thriving same-sex couples should be threatening to this vision, and it seems to me that a line is being drawn which is comfortable for everyone except those who actually have to deal with the basic realities of how these policies play out in civil society.

In particular, I would ask you to consider that there are many religious groups which do celebrate the marriages of same-sex couples, this makes your desire for religious freedom doubly burdened. I could go so far as to suggest that this places a positive requirement on you to be supportive of legalised same-sex marriage in your jurisdiction with reasonable religious exemptions (for example, no forcing of a religious group to bless same-sex marriages or have their place of worship be used for such).

We're not talking about a hostile godless horde, there are faith communities which believe that same-sex marriages are one more way to heal a world which is often divided for no reason except misdirected fear. While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?

Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Johnny S:
quote:
Or were you just referring to the fact that something like 97% of men are heterosexual?
Yes, although depending on whose statistics you believe the percentage of homosexuals may be higher - the estimates I've seen range from 4%-10%. Given that there are more straight men around the chances of encountering an abusive heterosexual are considerably higher.

I am of course making the assumption that gay men are no more (or less) likely to be sinful than straight men, but you seem to be willing to accept this. Unless you are prepared to ban all men from looking after their own children (which would bar heterosexual men from applying for custody if their marriages break down as well) I don't see any way out of your dilemma. In Europe, such a law could be challenged under human rights legislation as it interferes with a right to family life. In the UK it could also be challenged under equality legislation, unless you are planning to ban lesbian couples from looking after/adopting/having children as well.

I would also like to point out that these hypothetical gay couples do not exist in a vacuum. They may be highly respectable, much-loved members of a family and the most suitable people to be appointed as guardians of their nieces and nephews in the event of the parents' death. Refusing to allow this restricts the freedom of the children's natural parents to choose guardians.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, but no-one's ever indicated a crisis over childless heterosexual couples, such as that the Marriage Act needs to be amended to insert something explicit about children or families into it to combat an alternative, non-family-based reading. It simply hasn't happened. We're all WELL aware that there are childless marriages out there, and society doesn't appear to be the least bit bothered by it or felt the need to clarify the meaning of the Marriage Act.

... probably because no one (yet) feels that the definition of parenthood as being between mother and father needs clarifying. Why would childless marriages bring into question that, in order to be born, a baby needs a biological mother and a biological father?

BTW This discussion assumes that society is slowing moving towards gay marriage. What if it shifted the other way? In the UK the Islamic population is growing rapidly - not by conversions but by immigration and population growth. This means that it is not improbable that Muslim opinion may become a significant lobby group in UK politics in the next few decades. I admit that it is drawing a bit of a long bow, but knowing the views on marriage from all the Muslims I have spoken to (not statistically significant admittedly [Biased] ) who is to say that the definition of marriage does not become more conservative in the future? If so, what would you say about the political and legal process then?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.

I don't understand this point.

People with prejudice will treat like you this whatever the law says. If, as a civil partner, you do have these rights and you think that a nurse may treat you this way, I don't see how being married will make the difference.

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?

It is quite true that our knowledge of what God wants must be inherently fallible. However, these are the implications that I think flow from this:

1. The same must apply to your knowledge of God.
2. If this is about how God made the world then the one possibility not open to us is that he wants it for some communities but not others. It's all or nothing, surely?
3. Jesus said quite a lot about following him will mean being a minority. (Of course Gay Christians will say that has been them for the past few hundred years!)

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am of course making the assumption that gay men are no more (or less) likely to be sinful than straight men, but you seem to be willing to accept this. Unless you are prepared to ban all men from looking after their own children (which would bar heterosexual men from applying for custody if their marriages break down as well) I don't see any way out of your dilemma. In Europe, such a law could be challenged under human rights legislation as it interferes with a right to family life. In the UK it could also be challenged under equality legislation, unless you are planning to ban lesbian couples from looking after/adopting/having children as well.

But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.

I don't understand this point.

People with prejudice will treat like you this whatever the law says. If, as a civil partner, you do have these rights and you think that a nurse may treat you this way, I don't see how being married will make the difference.

While there is some truth to what you are saying, prejudiced people need to be told firmly and quickly what the situation is in terms that carry weight with them while they are still in the deer-in-headlights mode. When they're confronted with a same-sex couple or partner, their brains are looking for a path of least resistance, because they don't actually want to deal with you. Telling them you're married has a much greater chance of putting them in the autopilot they use with people in general by hammering the point home that you are people in general, and can be gotten rid of by being dealt with as such. No special boxes to tick, no regulations to fumble over.

Whether or not you accept this argument depends to a great extent on whether you believe people tend to be arbitrarily evil for no reason, or that often they are simply very afraid and need simple guidance in order to avoid doing horrible things.

Separate but equal is a license to discriminate, it indicates to the public that these people are "less", so it would be wrong to treat them as equals. We just can't bring ourselves to even call them by the same names we use for people who are similarly situated. I'd prefer to drink from the same fountain as everyone else.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?

It is quite true that our knowledge of what God wants must be inherently fallible. However, these are the implications that I think flow from this:

1. The same must apply to your knowledge of God.

This is true, but in my case I'm not trying to constrain your freedom in any way other than in the trivial sense that if I were civilly married, my partner and I would have to be treated as such for these purposes in civil society, something you would take for granted for yourself. You would be welcome, for non-civil purposes, to consider my marriage invalid, as is sometimes the case with those remarried after divorce.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

2. If this is about how God made the world then the one possibility not open to us is that he wants it for some communities but not others. It's all or nothing, surely?

If by it you mean salvation, then I agree. I'd like to point out that salvation does not mean that we have to cut off bits of ourselves using a cookie cutter to get into the "right" shape. Much less the bits of others we happen to be offended by. This is not to say that knowledge of salvation does not stir us into action, but that these actions are unique to each of us (how could it be any other way?). We may find that the world is made new in unexpected ways.

There is a certain amount of good faith required in discerning God's will when someone is "different" from the rest. The same applies to both of us, of course, and I realize that you also have a point, and very good reason to be concerned.

However, as I've said previously, I have seen, and been given something wonderful. I can do no else but to accept it gratefully and with care and celebrate it with others. You have also seen and been given something wonderful. Ultimately, we can only share our stories, and try to discern something of that which we have been given in each other.

We are different people, and we have different needs. Yet we are all people. Some couples are heterosexual, and some couples are homosexual, but we may all be called to marriage. Whether we have heard this call is best determined by those closest to us. This is not to say our stories are the same, it is just that we share them on equal footing.

What I'm trying to say is that God is mostly likely much more creative than we expect, and that salvation isn't a return to some supposed utopia which happens to be comfortable for some and arbitrarily, unavoidably and unfairly unbearable for others.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
3. Jesus said quite a lot about following him will mean being a minority. (Of course Gay Christians will say that has been them for the past few hundred years!)

His yoke is also quite light apparently. I suspect the responsibility of hoping and/or ensuring your fellow humans remain second class citizens sometimes weighs heavily on one's shoulders.
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Johnny S:
quote:
But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.
[Confused] You seem to be arguing that gay men should not be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to have families. Or because they can't have families? I'm beginning to lose track of exactly what general (non-religious) objections you are raising. But if you really believe that gay men shouldn't be allowed to look after children (whether their own or anyone else's) you do need new legislation. Because at the moment there isn't anything stopping them - or any unmarried heterosexuals, for that matter.

I am merely trying to point out that whether or not you are considered to be a fit person to be in charge of a child is a completely separate issue to the question of who should be allowed to marry, and I don't think it's really relevant to this discussion anyway. The only question the vicar asked us before we got married was 'Are you married to anyone else?' (he could see from our birth certificates that we weren't brother and sister).

If heterosexuals can get married with the intention of never having children, getting divorced a few months later or continuing an adulterous affair, I don't think there's much more damage that homosexuals can do to the institution. And I'm not worried about whether my own marriage survives - that's my problem (and my husband's) and I don't feel the need to shuffle responsibility for it off to anyone else.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.

You mean your comments about gay adoption and surrogate parents shouldn't be taken seriously?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Separate but equal is a license to discriminate, it indicates to the public that these people are "less", so it would be wrong to treat them as equals. We just can't bring ourselves to even call them by the same names we use for people who are similarly situated. I'd prefer to drink from the same fountain as everyone else.

I hear what you say Frisky.

I don't really have anything more to say.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[Confused] You seem to be arguing that gay men should not be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to have families. Or because they can't have families? I'm beginning to lose track of exactly what general (non-religious) objections you are raising. But if you really believe that gay men shouldn't be allowed to look after children (whether their own or anyone else's) you do need new legislation. Because at the moment there isn't anything stopping them - or any unmarried heterosexuals, for that matter.

I think those are reasons to oppose gay marriage (considering the provision for civil partnerships).

However, I do not want to actively lobby for gay couples not to be able to adopt.

While there is a degree of inconsistency the difference between the two should be pretty clear.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If heterosexuals can get married with the intention of never having children, getting divorced a few months later or continuing an adulterous affair

Yes, but my point is that they have to have their fingers crossed when they do. In fact when I got married I had to make promises against all three - and that was in a normal CofE service.

The civil law cannot make people view marriage in a particular way but it can hold up an ideal.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say 'society', that includes otherwise conservative and vocal lobby groups. I can find plenty of agitation about gay marriage. But I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, anywhere advocating law reform on this issue, ie saying that intentionally childless marriages should be prevented. The family/children theory only EVER appears while talking about gay couples. It has no independent impetus.

To be fair, my understanding is that the Catholic Church would annul a marriage entered into with the intention of never having children.

Even there, though, a marriage would usually be formally annulled only at the suit of one the parties. If both are content with the situation, their putative marrriage is, in every practical sense, good against the rest of the world, and its invalidity is an issue only between them and their God.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I guess the standard of whether the parenting argument is a legitimate concern or merely a pretense is to ask "if same sex couples could actually be shown to be better parents than their opposite sex counterparts, would that change your mind to favor same-sex marriage?" Going further, would such a finding also induce you to advocate withdrawing state recognition from opposite-sex marriages on the grounds that same-sex parenting is the superior option?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That link needs fixing [Smile]

Linky

Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess the standard of whether the parenting argument is a legitimate concern or merely a pretense is to ask "if same sex couples could actually be shown to be better parents than their opposite sex counterparts, would that change your mind to favor same-sex marriage?"

(Thanks for the link Frisky.)

Leaving aside the issue that this study is about lesbian couples only, it was a study of couples using AI.

Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.

The fact that wealthy kids tend to do better than poor kids is hardly ground-breaking research. I hope this was looked at in the original research quoted by TIME.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.

AI costs £500-£1000 per cycle privately for the recommended 6 cycles (and that's gouging it a bit - other quoted rates include $300-500). Hardly extremely expensive by medical standards (it's cheaper for a course than a gastric band). Or by the standards of raising a child. And is, of course, likely to need fewer cycles for lesbians than for people who need artificial insemination due to medical problems.

Calling it extremely expensive is simply untrue.

quote:
The fact that wealthy kids tend to do better than poor kids is hardly ground-breaking research. I hope this was looked at in the original research quoted by TIME.
The fact that engaged parents do better than unengaged is even less groundbreaking. And almost every single lesbian parent is engaged - getting pregnant was a choice.

Which doesn't address that you've ducked the question. If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which doesn't address that you've ducked the question. If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?

Or adopt the position that only lesbians should be allowed to married?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.


Nonsense - my SIL's sister is a lesbian with two children. Her and her partner are by no means well off.

Her boys are just the same age as my two - and very fine young men they are too.

(eta - Interestingly, she is one of six children - three straight, three gay. Their Dad was homosexual)

[ 12. November 2011, 13:47: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
AI is only expensive if you have doctors do it and want either anonymous donors or some kind of special quality control of sperm - which is only neccessary if there is a medical problem preventing normal conception. If you don't care about that you can do it yourself for free. Its not exactly difficult (though it might be embarrasing). There is no need to involve professionals at all.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There have been people who were quite successful using turkey basters.

[ 12. November 2011, 21:59: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
AI is only expensive if you have doctors do it and want either anonymous donors or some kind of special quality control of sperm - which is only neccessary if there is a medical problem preventing normal conception. If you don't care about that you can do it yourself for free. Its not exactly difficult (though it might be embarrasing). There is no need to involve professionals at all.

That's true, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the study quoted in the article. The sample seems to be of those who had AI done professionally.

Going on the examples given above that looks like 3k - 6k for each attempt to conceive. I wouldn't say that it puts it out of the reach of most of the population but it clearly does exclude those on low income. I know a lot of people locally who simply could not afford that, not close.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?

At the level of civil legislation - yes, absolutely.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(eta - Interestingly, she is one of six children - three straight, three gay. Their Dad was homosexual)

You'll have to help me out here Boogie - what is the bit that is interesting here?

That a gay guy produces way more gay children than statistically expected?

or that a gay guy manages to have 6 children?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
]You'll have to help me out here Boogie - what is the bit that is interesting here?

That a gay guy produces way more gay children than statistically expected?

or that a gay guy manages to have 6 children?

He didn't come out as gay until after all of his thee children had done so. He was over sixty and it was a difficult The whole family are very dear to me and probably the reason why I am so vociferace in my belief that we are born with our sexuality and don't choose it.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?

At the level of civil legislation - yes, absolutely.
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?

Hold on, let's get the peer reviewed evidence first. For a start we need to agree on what constitutes evidence of better parents in the first place. Plus correlation versus causation.

The report you quoted suggested that gay parents were more involved because their children were more likely to face prejudice and discrimination.

Are you going to lobby the government that we should abuse all children to improve the parenting the children receive? " 'Cos that's what the report says."

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?

Hold on, let's get the peer reviewed evidence first. For a start we need to agree on what constitutes evidence of better parents in the first place. Plus correlation versus causation.
It's a hypothetical question. If there were evidence that opposite-sex parenting were inferior to same-sex parenting, would it logically follow that opposite-sex couples should not be recognized as married by the state?

The most fascinating thing about the paragraph above is that when advocating the lesser status of others in the eyes of the law you consider your unconfirmed personal prejudice to be sufficient reason, but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof. I vaguely recall some obscure Christian teaching that starts out "Do unto others . . . " How does that end again?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
See also "the worst kind of discrimination".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.

That's not fair.

I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."

I think that is reasonable enough. I'm certain that you would say the same about any study published by a Christian think-tank.

Any study of this sort is useful for informing public opinion but it is still just a snap shot of how things currently are. No research can ever tell us how things should be. This is simply outside of the scope of objective research.

I'm sure that if anyone presented to you the papers produced by groups like The Christian Institute (UK) you would, rightly, be rather sceptical in how you viewed them. All I'm saying is that this cuts both ways.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The report you quoted suggested that gay parents were more involved because their children were more likely to face prejudice and discrimination.

Are you going to lobby the government that we should abuse all children to improve the parenting the children receive? " 'Cos that's what the report says."

Umm, I think you might want to rethink using the prejudice of communities as an excuse to question the parenting fitness of a couple. It has been made elsewhere fairly recently.

US judge's mixed marriage refusal [BBC, 16 Oct 2009]

From the article
quote:

Keith Bardwell, of Tangipahoa Parish in Louisiana, denied racism but said mixed-race children were not readily accepted by their parents' communities.

...

He said he had discussed the issue with both black and white people before making his decision.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," he said "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."


Otherwise, he seems to be a-okay with black people

quote:

He said he had "piles and piles of black friends" but just did not believe in "mixing the races".
"They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else," he said.

You might try to argue that this story was not about adoption, but then you'd be missing the point.
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776

 - Posted      Profile for frisky     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.

That's not fair.

I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."

Crœsos' question, as a hypothetical one, is fair, because it tries to determine whether you would simply shift the goal-posts again if utterly incontrovertible evidence were presented to you. By how much and in what direction are the goal-posts going to shift?

As far as scientific evidence goes, the most authoritative bodies in the field agree that current evidence is behind same-sex couples being at very least as good as opposite-sex couples in terms of parenting.

Here's an amicus brief filed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and the California Psychological Association

Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial

Starting at page 19 :

quote:

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.
... Page 24 ...

Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Thus, after careful scrutiny of decades of research in this area, the American Psychological Association concluded in its recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children: "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children” and that “Research has shown that adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”

The National Association of Social Workers has determined that “The most striking feature of the research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children is the absence of pathological findings. The second most striking feature is how similar the groups of gay and lesbian parents and their children are to heterosexual parents and their children that were included in the studies.”

Most recently, in adopting an official Position Statement in support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage, the American Psychiatric Association observed that "no research has shown that the children raised by lesbians and gay men are less well adjusted than those reared within heterosexual relationships."

These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure what standard of evidence you require to "rethink" your position, but it seems to me the burden of proof is on you at this point.
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.

That's not fair.

I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."

Now the follow up question. "How much evidence would it take?" Because as far as I know, almost all the evidence out there says that gay and lesbian parents are at least as good as straight ones. (I've said why I think this is so).

quote:
I'm sure that if anyone presented to you the papers produced by groups like The Christian Institute (UK) you would, rightly, be rather sceptical in how you viewed them. All I'm saying is that this cuts both ways.
I'd be as sceptical of papers by The Christian Institute as I would ones by Stonewall.

However Creosus is demonstrating organisations such as the American Psychiatric Association. Hardly fringe or single issue campaigners. What are your standards of evidence? Or will you keep objecting and shifting the ground?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Or will you keep objecting and shifting the ground?

I don't think the ‘shifting ground' objection is fair. Johnny S's objections aren't evidence based. They are based on authority - he believes that God has (in scripture and/or tradition) said no to same-sex marriages and must therefore have a good reason for saying no.

It is not unreasonable for him to speculate that this reason might have something to do with parenting or modelling gender roles, and then when the evidence fails to support that to accept that this cannot be the reason, and it must be something else. His objection was never based on an argument from parenting ability. The argument about parenting was speculatively based on his objection.


The question for me is not whether this or that possible explanation of the reasons behind the scriptural prohibition are good or made, but whether it is right to make law based on the scriptural on people who do not accept that prohibition at all, in a way that restricts their freedom out of all proportion to any harm that they could possibly do to any but themselves. And I can't see how it could be. I don't want to be prevented from marrying the person I love, no matter how sincerely you* believe that God has told you that I'm making a bad choice. So how can I justify doing that very thing to somebody else?


*(generic 'you')

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Umm, I think you might want to rethink using the prejudice of communities as an excuse to question the parenting fitness of a couple. It has been made elsewhere fairly recently.

You misunderstood me here. I was using that as an example of something that could be drawn from the report but shouldn't.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Crœsos' question, as a hypothetical one, is fair, because it tries to determine whether you would simply shift the goal-posts again if utterly incontrovertible evidence were presented to you. By how much and in what direction are the goal-posts going to shift?

Sure, and what I was getting at was whether the deal is reciprocal or not?

quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
As far as scientific evidence goes, the most authoritative bodies in the field agree that current evidence is behind same-sex couples being at very least as good as opposite-sex couples in terms of parenting.

Here's an amicus brief filed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and the California Psychological Association

Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial

Thanks a lot for this (sincerely). I'll have a read of it carefully over the next few days and get back to you after I've looked at properly.

My initial reaction (having just glanced at the first couple of pages) is that I'm surprised by how many times the phrase 'Scientific evidence' is used. (Is this an Americanism?) I could almost hear Sheldon Cooper in my ear every time I read it - "The Social Sciences are largely hokum!" - how can a study on parenting possibly be called scientific?

Still, it looks good, objective, and well researched so I'll give it a read.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question for me is not whether this or that possible explanation of the reasons behind the scriptural prohibition are good or made, but whether it is right to make law based on the scriptural on people who do not accept that prohibition at all, in a way that restricts their freedom out of all proportion to any harm that they could possibly do to any but themselves. And I can't see how it could be. I don't want to be prevented from marrying the person I love, no matter how sincerely you* believe that God has told you that I'm making a bad choice. So how can I justify doing that very thing to somebody else?

Although I don't agree with you entirely, this basically is why I'm interested in the research about parenting. It would be unlikely to shift my personal convictions but it could well change my mind about the laws of a secular society.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Whether God creates people gay, transgendered, or hermaphrodite or whether these states are defects somehow not attributable to God is a red herring IMHO.

Whether we consider congenital (or any other) blindness a defect or not has no effect whatsoever on our willingness to teach blind people Braille, or to take other steps for them to be productive and fulfilled in society. I don't hear anyone saying that because they are blind, it must be God's will that they shall not read. Even if the blind cannot read the way we do (or crippled people walk as we do), we don't begrudge them an approximation or equivalent.

But that's what the opponents of gay marriage imply (along with all other foot-draggers who wish that gays would just forget that they are sexual beings and carry on like eunuchs all their lives). Can anyone point out where my analogy breaks down?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I am (negatively) impressed by your ability to say that "Scientific evidence isn't really scientific evidence" but it would be a help if you actually read some of the evidence before saying that, or we won't believe what you have to say about it.

"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts" is a bit closer to where you seem to be.

Anyway, I'll throw "The Seven Habits of Effective Lesbian Parents" into the pot again, so you can ignore the article again.

It is non-scientific to the extent that it is anecdotal, with passing reference to scientific evidence. Is that non-scientific enough for you?

Sorry, edited to add that this is directed at Johnny, not Alogon.

[ 15. November 2011, 01:24: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I am (negatively) impressed by your ability to say that "Scientific evidence isn't really scientific evidence" but it would be a help if you actually read some of the evidence before saying that, or we won't believe what you have to say about it.

No, I'm saying that it isn't scientific evidence at all. That doesn't nullify the research, but it is incorrect to call most of the stuff cited as scientific. (Unless, as I asked, if this is down to an American usage of the word 'Scientific'.)

One report cited about orientation is based entirely on asking gay men and women to comment on their perception about their orientation. That is an entirely worthwhile thing to do and I can't really see how you can do a study without including this approach. However, it is not a scientific study. Saying that is a scientific study is trying to imply that the conclusions are based on science, when they are not. Doesn't make them wrong though.

I wasn't trying to discredit the research but rather trying to be clear about what type of evidence is being presented.


quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts" is a bit closer to where you seem to be.

Same question to you as to the others - is this reciprocal? i.e. Would a study pointing the other way change your mind?

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

"The Seven Habits of Effective Lesbian Parents" into the pot again, so you can ignore the article again.

I'll read it after I've finished the Amicus report, thanks.

On a thread like this when frequently I've got 5 people all arguing against me please do not assume that I'm ignoring a link you offered. I'm genuinely interested but have limited time. I think that is reasonable.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial

Okay, now I've read the report in full I can comment on it. (And then I'll have to go and read HB's link!)

Overall - it seems a pretty comprehensive and persuasive report. I would like to know a lot more about the various research projects that it is collating, but I suppose that inevitably must come down to trust. It has certainly challenged some of preconceptions - especially about Lesbian parents. I'm going to have think further about this and will read HB's link about Lesbian parenting.

Concerns - I think the report does raise issues though:

1. Gay Fathers - what becomes clear on closer inspection is that this is really a thorough report about Lesbian parenting. On several occasions (e.g. p 21, 23) the report acknowledges that there is very little data on Gay Dads. What really surprised me was how that was swept under the carpet (e.g. p 23). I would expect them to conclude something like this - "There is good evidence that Lesbian couples make for good parents and until we discover anything to the contrary about gay couples we think it is safe to assume the same for them too." Basically I thought that a report putting so much store on being objective would point out the assumption. But it doesn't. The authors bend over backwards not to allow that option. It reads very much like a report in response to Prop 8 which isn't really ready.

It wouldn't have changed to substance of the report but I would have had a far greater respect for their claim to objectivity if they had.

After I read that part it struck me how the report keeps making assertions about 'Gay & Lesbian couples' - without making it clear that this has been shown for Lesbian couples but not convincingly for gay couples. I think that it is a pretty huge assumption to move from one group to the other. Especially since mothers are, traditionally, seen as being more naturally inclined to parenthood.

2. Benefits of marriage (p 14) - this confused me. On this thread it has been pointed out to me (by Orfeo and others) that there isn't really any great benefit (as far as the state is concerned) anymore in being married. And yet one of the central planks of this report is that there is. Indeed, that children benefit from living with married parents.

Does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should be proposing greater support of marriage by the state in general? For example that adoption should only be by married couples?

3. Single Parents (p 20) - likewise I was struck by how direct the report was about the (claimed) deficiencies of single parenting.

Again, does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should also be lobbying government to stop allowing single people to adopt?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:


Whether we consider congenital (or any other) blindness a defect or not has no effect whatsoever on our willingness to teach blind people Braille, or to take other steps for them to be productive and fulfilled in society. I don't hear anyone saying that because they are blind, it must be God's will that they shall not read. Even if the blind cannot read the way we do (or crippled people walk as we do), we don't begrudge them an approximation or equivalent.

But that's what the opponents of gay marriage imply (along with all other foot-draggers who wish that gays would just forget that they are sexual beings and carry on like eunuchs all their lives). Can anyone point out where my analogy breaks down?

[Overused]

It's an excellent analogy. In fact none of us are physically the same. We all need to work with what we have. Others telling us that we are 'defective' isn't just unhelpful - it's cruel.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools