Miffs not-hate thread

[salsa4ever]

nice points anosmic!

I'm not sure whether you're playing devils advocate (sorry for the pun), or whether you're defending the christian/conservative position, assuming you're christian. but that's not relevant.

in re adoption, I don't think we can reasonably demand optimality really. Sure it's debatable whether homosexual couples are going to be as suitable as heterosexual ones. But in the grand scheme of things, aren't there much more suitable and more predictive factors to screen for suitability as adoptive parents than whether the two parents are of the opposite sex? I mean, isn't eduaction or income or mental stability more probative? If we're going to discriminate on the basis of providing the best parents for adoption, sexuality is just not a very good criteria. Furthermore, I think if the homosexual couple is well suited except for that fact, then it's going to be a huge improvement for the child over orphanage either in US state sponsored care or asia/africa/south america where they are likely to get sold into prostitution or die of hunger.

in re marriage, I just can't see how allowing homosexual marriage is somehow devaluing heterosexual marriages. I mean isn't it a bit rich for the man/woman pairings to say "man, I don't want my relationship to even be compared to yours!"

But if you want to argue on a semantic level, that marriage has been culturally defined as monogamous union between a man and woman, just like a royal flush is culturally defined as the best poker hand, I would have to agree. I mean, if the accepted meaning of marriage along the sands of time really is what you suggest (and on this point I really have no idea whether "marriage" has mostly/wholly meant christian marriage in the past) then you'd be right: nobody has the right to force us to change a long standing cultural definition of marriage.

But lets now make the assumption that gay unions, whatever you want to call them, ought to get the same institutional/legal protections are traditional ones because anything else is tantamount to an untenable state sponsored discrimination (I'm reading that in between the lines of what you've argued).

The alternatives would be to legislate for "civil unions" or whatever else to call them, and replace all statutory provisions of marriage with "marriage or civil union". The other would be to define "civil unions" as being legislatively identical to marriage. (The third would be expand the definition of marriage, for which I can accept your cogent argument against). I think either of those proposals is what gays want anyway. I'm not gay, but I don't think they care that much whether their partnership is called a marriage or not, so long as the state sponsored systematic discrimination is remedied

Finally on evolution, the universe as we know it is very, very, very old

[Anosmic]

nice points anosmic!

Nice points in FTR Community? Is that a strike or instaban?

I'm not sure whether you're playing devils advocate (sorry for the pun), or whether you're defending the christian/conservative position, assuming you're christian. but that's not relevant.

Yeah, I'm trying to provide a more rational argument for the conservative stance, I'm not saying I necessarily hold it myself, whether in whole or in part.

in re adoption, I don't think we can reasonably demand optimality really. Sure it's debatable whether homosexual couples are going to be as suitable as heterosexual ones. But in the grand scheme of things, aren't there much more suitable and more predictive factors to screen for suitability as adoptive parents than whether the two parents are of the opposite sex?

It's one of those hot potatoes that I think the future will mock us mercilessly for (along with all the shite we did to the planet). I think that in the western world we often are uncomfortable with the idea that there are useful differences between the genders (beyond merely biological) because that's like saying there's things men can do that women can't or vice versa.
It becomes a lot more significant in the west because of the breakdown of the extended family. A lost father or mother would perhaps be less significant when one lives in a tighter network of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.
Since families are so frequently isolated the components become so significant.

Is gender that important? Is it better to have two mums than a mum and a druken, abusive dad? A case can be made, but that's skirting the central issue, should a homosexual couple (or indeed a unmarried person) have the same adoptive rights as a married couple? Are we willing to declare that the biological parenting patern is not significant socially?

Furthermore, I think if the homosexual couple is well suited except for that fact, then it's going to be a huge improvement for the child over orphanage either in US state sponsored care or asia/africa/south america where they are likely to get sold into prostitution or die of hunger.

The beggars-can't-be-choosers argument. Certainly a fair point. Although I have no stats, is it true that there is more demand for adoptive parents than supply? I know it's not true for very young children.

in re marriage, I just can't see how allowing homosexual marriage is somehow devaluing heterosexual marriages. I mean isn't it a bit rich for the man/woman pairings to say "man, I don't want my relationship to even be compared to yours!"

Certainly is a tougher stance. Although it's more "equated" than "compared". It's not like saying "gay marriage" is the "the homosexual equivalent of marriage" (as I understand the argument). But rather that "Gay marriage" is marriage and if your concept of what marriage is has to stretch over that relationship too.

But if you want to argue on a semantic level,

Always

Finally on evolution, the universe as we know it is very, very, very old

Bollocks.


It all came into existence one sunny July day in 1975.
Everything before that is a fiction designed to deflect attention from the fact that I am the centre of the universe.


On a more serious note I don't believe in the big bang theory and I think the universe may be very, very, very, VERY, very, very old and it just looks very, very, very old to the untrained eye.

[spoonitnow]

Can we get rid of fat people marriage too? That's probably not a good environment for children. They shouldn't be able to adopt either because their kids have a better chance of being overweight. Oh, people who chew their gum loud too. They "bother me." I don't want any kids to be future loud gum chewers. Oh, let's ban "people who watch the NBA" marriage. I dislike the NBA and they could create more NBA fans, that bothers me. In fact, let's just go ahead and ban everyone that disagrees with anything I believe in. God forbid they enjoy the privileges of marriage and a family if they hold different views on life.

Why stop there? If fat people can't breed, marry, or integrate themselves into society, what's the point in letting them live? Same with all the other people who disagree with me. I say we band together and eradicate all these groups of unbelievers, these infidels. Man, I can't believe no one has thought of this before!


Ridiculous threads deserve ridiculous responses and nothing more.

This is easily my favorite thing ever said on FTR.

[pgil]

but I don't think they care that much whether their partnership is called a marriage or not, so long as the state sponsored systematic discrimination is remedied

I would imagine that a "separate but equal" idea would not go over very well with a group of people fighting for civil rights.

Are problems encountered with single-parent families to do with number or gender? Is an absent father a problem because it's a lack of male-parent or a lack of second parent? These questions are NOT trivial. (But I'm not saying they're not answerable).

on the whole they are a problem of socioeconomic status as a typical 1 income household has a very hard time surviving in this economy.

Are we willing to declare that the biological parenting patern is not significant socially?

So we should not allow a married couple that has a stay-at-home dad and a working mom to adopt? This would be the logical outcome of your statement.

Although it's more "equated" than "compared". It's not like saying "gay marriage" is the "the homosexual equivalent of marriage" (as I understand the argument). But rather that "Gay marriage" is marriage and if your concept of what marriage is has to stretch over that relationship too.

The people making this argument should also be up in arms over quicky vegas "marriages", almost all celebrity "marriages", etc. because they are qualitatively different beasts than a typical "marriage". In fact, there are a lot of marriages that I know of that should be downgraded to 'civil unions' based on my own criteria of what constitutes marriage. Fortunately, that isn't how things work.

Marriage is not something that was invented by the church, and although in the western world it is something that the church has managed to co-opt, doesn't mean it has the discretion to decide what can and cannot be called a 'marriage'. If the church wants to separate it's members' unions from the 'ungodly union' of two loving people of the same sex, then let them come up with their own terminology and have to lobby for it to be recognized as separate but equal to regular marriage, as defined by the state.

[biondino]

pgil repeatedly OTM

[will641]

the thing about gay marriages is that it has little if anything to do with evolution. why do you guys care if other gays are getting married? does it affect your life whatsoever if there are gays getting married? if you oppose gays and their rights to marry, then don't be gay and don't get married.

i neither support nor object. like i said before, as long as i am not walking through the park and see two gay dudes getting it on, i dont care. but seriously on another note, wtf is up with gay people giving head and getting butt plugged in public? that shit is gross. and to end this post with a joke:

how do you get 4 gay dudes to fit on a bar stool?
turn the stool upside down.

[givememyleg]

Can we get rid of fat people marriage too? That's probably not a good environment for children. They shouldn't be able to adopt either because their kids have a better chance of being overweight. Oh, people who chew their gum loud too. They "bother me." I don't want any kids to be future loud gum chewers. Oh, let's ban "people who watch the NBA" marriage. I dislike the NBA and they could create more NBA fans, that bothers me. In fact, let's just go ahead and ban everyone that disagrees with anything I believe in. God forbid they enjoy the privileges of marriage and a family if they hold different views on life.

Why stop there? If fat people can't breed, marry, or integrate themselves into society, what's the point in letting them live? Same with all the other people who disagree with me. I say we band together and eradicate all these groups of unbelievers, these infidels. Man, I can't believe no one has thought of this before!


Ridiculous threads deserve ridiculous responses and nothing more.

This is easily my favorite thing ever said on FTR.

PURE GOLD