Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court

Hitman_Leon · 7 Jul 2015 at 08:33

Bensons said:
**** me, I'm doing it all wrong. I better get divorced and leave my kid.

That's a viewpoint I don't agree with, the almost universal view that by default the child/children stay with the mother should a relationship breakdown.

Hitman_Leon · 7 Jul 2015 at 08:40

We could learn some things from same sex parents about how they handle relationship breakdowns in relation to which parent a child or children reside with, a gender neutral approach which only takes into account the best interests of the child.

Tosno · 7 Jul 2015 at 10:37

Angilion said:
For a long time it was the church's view that the sun orbited the Earth. The church's view is not necessarily correct.

Beautiful straw man.

The view that the sun orbits the Earth is less silly than the view you have just described because for quite a while it did match the available evidence to a reasonably good degree. The idea that all men are one thing and all women are one thing and those two things are extremely different to each other contradicts the available evidence and so it is wrong and silly.

Don't have an Anglican marriage then, it will be terribly wrong and silly.

Hitman_Leon · 7 Jul 2015 at 11:33

titaniumx3 said:
I don't have any issues with same sex marriage, but I don't think they should be afforded the same rights as a hetrosexual couple when it comes to child rearing via adoption. All else being equal, a hetrosexual couple should be given preference. It's not the rights of the parents at stake here, but the right of the child to have a mother and father. Argue all you want about it, but when you strip away all human constructs, we have a simple truth that it is 'normal' for a human child to have a mother and father,and they should be afforded the right to experience that, irrespective of whether a single or same sex couple could do the job just as well.

This would open yet another equality debate, what of all the children of single parents? especially the one's with either absent or dead parents of either sex, leaving them to be raised in a single gender parent situation.

A second issue could arise also, children or child live with parent A after a split, parent B develops a new stable relationship/marriage. Because parent B now has a mixed gender household should parent B be automatically given custody of the children/child because this is seen as more "normal".

Or could single parents be forced into adoption of their child because they don't have the "normal" mixed gender household.

In essence favouring mixed gender couples as parents would create more problems than it would be purported to fix and could lead to some very upset children.

Angilion · 7 Jul 2015 at 20:41

Hitman_Leon said:
We could learn some things from same sex parents about how they handle relationship breakdowns in relation to which parent a child or children reside with, a gender neutral approach which only takes into account the best interests of the child.

That's a somewhat unrealistically idealistic view. Being in a homosexual relationship doesn't automatically make a person better - people are people so there's all the same stuff in homosexual relationships that there is in heterosexual relationships, the good and the bad. Of course, that means that relationship breakdowns are not always handled perfectly in homosexual relationships any more than they are in heterosexual relationships. It simply isn't the case that all homosexual parents only take into account the best interests of the child(ren) after a relationship breakdown.

There's little or no sexism, obviously, but gender can still be an issue.

Angilion · 7 Jul 2015 at 20:44

Tosno said:
Beautiful straw man.

No, it isn't. You put forward "the church's view" as a relevant factor. I countered with an example of "the church's view" being provably wrong, thus showing that your argument is a false appeal to authority.

Don't have an Anglican marriage then, it will be terribly wrong and silly.

If it requires belief in things that are provably wrong, contradict reality and deny the existence of individuals then yes, it would be terribly wrong and silly.

Tosno · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:07

Angilion said:
No, it isn't. You put forward "the church's view" as a relevant factor. I countered with an example of "the church's view" being provably wrong, thus showing that your argument is a false appeal to authority.

Person 1 (Tosno) asserts proposition X (man and wife are one flesh).
Person 2 (Angilion) argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y (another church view), as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

If it requires belief in things that are provably wrong, contradict reality and deny the existence of individuals then yes, it would be terribly wrong and silly.

"Available evidence" means something is provably wrong now and contradicts reality? Who denied the existence of individuals?

RDM · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:28

Tosno said:
Person 1 (Tosno) asserts proposition X (man and wife are one flesh).

Do you anything to back up this assertion? Reality seems to contradict it.

RoboCod · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:35

I really don't know why people are debating the matter anyway, whatever your view, the law now states it's absolutely acceptable and that it is perfectly equal to a heterosexual marriage.

What will happen is, years will pass, gay marriage will be completely normal for pretty much all and those that oppose it will have all but died out. The tiny minority who might oppose it will be bracketed along with the intolerant twerp's of today like those who believe that black people are beneath them.

SexyGreyFox · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:47

RoboCod said:
I really don't know why people are debating the matter anyway, whatever your view, the law now states it's absolutely acceptable and that it is perfectly equal to a heterosexual marriage.

Wow, Captain Obvious however Koolpc & friends are still allowed their opinion.

Tosno · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:56

RDM said:
Do you anything to back up this assertion? Reality seems to contradict it.

The answer seems to me to be obvious, and not to need any explanation to the conscious person. Marriage, for most of us, is defined as an union between 2 people of opposite sex. A life long union of 2 people of the same sex, whether you approve of such a thing or not, is by definition not marriage. Men who seek to marry a man is also in my view making a conscious or unconscious propaganda gesture against the existing idea of marriage. Such a relationship can not produce a child of both parents at any age.

Angilion · 7 Jul 2015 at 21:59

Tosno said:
Person 1 (Tosno) asserts proposition X (man and wife are one flesh).
Person 2 (Angilion) argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y (another church view), as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

Person 1 (Tosno) cites "the church's view" as a relevant factor, i.e. an appeal to authority.

Person 2 (Angilion) provides one of many examples of "the church's view" being provably wrong, thus demonstrating that "the church's view" is not a reliable authority.

"Available evidence" means something is provably wrong now and contradicts reality? Who denied the existence of individuals?

You did. Your line of argument requires the assumption that all men are the same person and all women are the same person, which denies the existence of individuals. You can't argue that all women are extremely different to all men without arguing that all men are the same and all women are the same, i.e. denying the existence of individuals.

Angilion · 7 Jul 2015 at 22:07

Tosno said:
The answer seems to me to be obvious, and not to need any explanation to the conscious person. [..]

So you cannot support your assertion.

Which is hardly surprising, since anyone can see that heterosexual couples are still two people and haven't physically combined into some sort of hybrid entity like a joined Trill from Star Trek.

Tosno · 7 Jul 2015 at 22:14

Yes the church was wrong about the earth being flat, if one has doubts about the rest of the authority, why join the silly club? Have a civil ceremony.

I'd love to know how from "It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula."

You make "that all men are the same person and all women are the same person"

titaniumx3 · 7 Jul 2015 at 22:26

Hitman_Leon said:
This would open yet another equality debate, what of all the children of single parents? especially the one's with either absent or dead parents of either sex, leaving them to be raised in a single gender parent situation.

A second issue could arise also, children or child live with parent A after a split, parent B develops a new stable relationship/marriage. Because parent B now has a mixed gender household should parent B be automatically given custody of the children/child because this is seen as more "normal".

Or could single parents be forced into adoption of their child because they don't have the "normal" mixed gender household.

In essence favouring mixed gender couples as parents would create more problems than it would be purported to fix and could lead to some very upset children.

But surely in those cases my original statement still applies, that is, all else being equal a mixed gender couple should be given preference. So if there is a divorce and both parents are equally capable of taking care of the child, but one is in a stable relationship with someone of the opposite gender, they should be given preference.

This is not an issue with equality and should not be forced to be one just for the sake of it.

Tosno · 7 Jul 2015 at 22:31

Angilion said:
So you cannot support your assertion.

Which is hardly surprising, since anyone can see that heterosexual couples are still two people and haven't physically combined into some sort of hybrid entity like a joined Trill from Star Trek.

I have no idea what you are talking about being physically combined into hybrids.
Maybe it will help you:
http://www.gotquestions.org/one-flesh-marriage.html

RoboCod · 7 Jul 2015 at 22:35

Dimple said:
Wow, Captain Obvious however Koolpc & friends are still allowed their opinion.

Yes, a completely outdated and, by majority vote, wrong opinion.

RDM · 7 Jul 2015 at 23:37

Tosno said:
Yes the church was wrong about the earth being flat, if one has doubts about the rest of the authority, why join the silly club? Have a civil ceremony.

I'd love to know how from "It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula."

You make "that all men are the same person and all women are the same person"

Other than the biological what characteristics do men lack that women have and vice versa? Unless it is specifically the biological in which case that doesn't really support your assertion that they are "one flesh". I certainly feel really close to my wife but we are still two separate people. You don't seem to be able to back up your assertion with anything other than "It's obvious!" Sorry, but it isn't obvious.

estebanrey · 7 Jul 2015 at 23:43

Tosno said:
Yes the church was wrong about the earth being flat

When did they claim that? According to Qi, no one ever claimed the Earth was flat....

Angilion · 8 Jul 2015 at 04:16

Tosno said:
Yes the church was wrong about the earth being flat, if one has doubts about the rest of the authority, why join the silly club? Have a civil ceremony.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that that part of your argument was a false appeal to authority (and the rest is just silly).

I'd love to know how from "It is a statement that a man and a woman united in this way are greater than the sum of their parts, partly because they are so different from each other and have so much to learn from each other. The differences between the 2 sexes, the fact that each necessarily possesses characteristics the other necessarily lacks, are crucial to this formula."

You make "that all men are the same person and all women are the same person"

I've already explained this. You have quoted part of a sentence, so your above claim is wrong. Here's what I actually wrote:

"Your line of argument requires the assumption that all men are the same person and all women are the same person, which denies the existence of individuals. You can't argue that all women are extremely different to all men without arguing that all men are the same and all women are the same, i.e. denying the existence of individuals."

I'll try explaining again in a slightly different way that you might find clearer.

Your statement is the belief that all men are very different to all women and that all women learn the same things from all men and all men learn the same things from all women. That is only possible if all men are the same person and all women are the same person, so your statement requires belief that all men are the same person and all women are the same person. If you acknowledged the possibility of individual people, you could not believe your own statement.