?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Gay Marriage. - Chaz Meyers [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Chaz Meyers

[ website | chazmeyers.com ]
[ profile | view profile ]
[ archive | view archive ]

Links
[Links:| chazmeyers.com Twitter ]

Gay Marriage. [Mar. 16th, 2005|12:28 am]
Chaz Meyers
This is a reply to a post that dietzorama1701 made in rebuttal to replies to another post he made. His second post was ridiculously huge and repetitive, so only sections I directly replying to are quoted. So, it might help to read his post first.

Please also note that this is not grammar/spell checked. I've wasted enough of my life on this post already.



The attack on me is unacceptable.


If you preceived my responses as an attack on you, I am sorry for that. Per usual, I believe you are a swell individual. My intention was to just criticize your arguments.

And I am sorry, but some of them are strong arguments.


And strong arguments, when flawed, deserve a strong rebutal. Otherwise, there is no discussion. :-)

I enjoy starting a dialogue, I do, but some of the emails (not posts) I have received are ridiculous.


Ah, sweet! In the clear. ;-)

And people wonder why I stay over towards conservative.


In our defense, there are just as many nuts on the conservative side of things too. But you know that already. You really can't really judge an entire party by the idiots who urinate upon the host's lawn.

At least Republicans have both pro choice and pr life people speaking openly in their party, for example.


At least people who attend our political ralleys don't need to sign a Loyalty Oath! ;-)

(OK, that was cheap. But you made it way too easy on me!)

Some of you are obsessive compulsive, and dissect every word and take glee in ripping apart a conservative willing to try to start dialogues. </blockquote>

OK, this one might be directed at me. True, when I debate, I take a Socratic approach which might be frustrating. However, this is simply to make sure I cover every point I want to reply to. Even if I structured the formatting of my argument, the content would be the same. It would just take me more time.

Let me make clear this is in response to emails I have received, not the posts made by my friends.


Haha, OK. Just covering my bases above. :)

Have the guts to post your answer to me for ALL to see.


Yes, while I may swing on the liberal end of things, I am equally happy tearing apart stupid arguments of either pursuation. It's just easier when I disagree with the primary themes of the discussion. ;-)

But some of you assume that I am FOR the ban on gay marriage.


You had written, "I think one side is seeing a romantic, love blinded argument, which is very compelling and convincing. We also see a measure of conservative beliefs in the family unit that has sustained our humanity through its entire history."

When I read that, it comes across as you think one side is being emotional and irrational, while the other side is being pragmatic and working off of tradition. I could understand why someone might think you were already siding against same-sex marriages.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


Which I interpret as "Just because it isn't listed here as a right doesn't mean it's not a right". That was in refutal to you saying something like, "Well, marriage isn't in the Constitution, so it's not covered and Judges should have left it alone."

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Notice equal protection of the laws. Not "equal protection of the laws if you're straight".

MIGHT I POINT OUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW PART, my friends. Not the pens of judges!!!!! A PROCESS.


I'm pretty sure "due process" actually refers to the courts system, meaning that your case won't be tangled in the Judicial process indefinitely. Doesn't really apply in the way you say it does.

Following your argument, judges should never be able to overrule laws when they are unconstitutional. If that was the case, the judicial branch wouldn't be much of a check.


Clearly, love is not defined, nor included. It is certainly arguable, with regards to the pursuit of happiness, (but some people would like to burn their neighbors house down in the "pursuit of happiness") but it is not clear cut, which is the whole problem. You can have all the opinions you wish, but quite frankly, its a gray area. Thus why i am deadlocked.


I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. If you start with "OK, gay marriage is banned. Can I think of a reason why it should be allowed?" you'll end up with weird arguments like "Because EVERYONE Should Love!!!" which cannot be discussed rationally. The argument isn't about love and never has been. It is about the government treating two groups of people differently because of a demographic. That is discrimination. By bringing love into the matter, you just confuse the issue.


A better way to approach it is to look at it as, "Is there a good reason for gay marriage to be banned?" The only reasons you presented before were "Think of the children" and "We haven't done this before, so all chaos will break loose". Other people might throw in "Because Jesus says so", but since I don't believe in a Jesus, I am not going to even touch that last one. Please forgive me for that. :)

"We haven't done this before" isn't valid because if we followed that logic, we would have never freed black people. Again, I am sure that there are people who would argue that is a good reason to ban gay marriage, but I believe that between the two of us, we can let it rest at that. :-P

As for the statistic (Chaz, your statement is opinion, pure and simple. Statistics, in the very least are OVERALL accurate in some cases. And this one, believe me as a teacher, even in my first year, I can tell you (without even knowing the backgrounds) the kids who come from happy, healthy homes,a dn i am sorry, they are by far married individuals).


I said "Statistics are used to reinforcing lies", I believe. I should have said "Statistics are OFTEN used to reinforce lies". I believe the statistic you cited is of that set.

You said, "THe far majority of children who are of sound mind, high performance in school, optimistic outlook on life, they come from mariages between men and women." and cited it as a statistic.

I don't doubt that is a fact. If you took a count of every single child who was sound of mind, got good grades, was optimistic on life, and had heterosexual parents, I am certain that number would be bigger than a count of every single child who was sound of mind, got good grades, was optimistic on life, and had homosexual parents.

I believe you wanted that statistic to make it sound like gay parents are prone to raising children who are crazy, bad at school, and hated life. Please correct me if I am wrong in that presumption. That is the lie which the statistic is being used to reinforce. Your data does not back up that argument.

It is true we have no data for gay marriage adoptions. Good point. Would be interesting to test the stats on that.


This reinforces the point I just made.

****** SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE SECTION


[...]

This whole section said why marriage is a good thing, not why homosexuals should be banned from it. If there was any relevance to our discussion which I missed, please point it out to me.

FYI, a homosexual home is not the same as a broken home.

***** SOMEONE CALLED ME HOMOPHOBIC. Well.......


[...]

Again, irrelevent. The proper retort to "You're a homophobe" is "Nuh uh", not saying that homosexuals are sick in the head, sick in the body, sluts, and you have the statistics to back up what you're saying. If you don't believe that is what you wrote, please re-read what you wrote. The slut part is particularly irrelevent. People who are planning on getting married tend to not sleep around.

*****WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN?

Children raised by both biological parents are significantly healthier, happier and better adjusted emotionally than kids raised by single parents of either sex. They are less likely to live in poverty or engage in violent crime or sexual promiscuity and more likely to be successful in school, career, and marriage.66 Same-sex couples, by definition, would have at least one non-biological parent.


For this to be relevant, this makes the assumption that gay people inevitabily will get married to someone of the opposite sex, have a child, and then break up with them to remarry someone of the same gender. Is it not possible that as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted that this will be a less common case, since people will spend less of their lives in denial about who they are?

There seem to be good reasons that children need both biological parents. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men and women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Men are more likely to play expansively with their children than to do mundane care taking; women tend to be more practical. Mothers tend to be more responsive to their child's immediate needs, while fathers tend to be more firm, more oriented to abstract standards of justice (right and wrong).67 Kids need both.


Are two homosexual parents, in your opinion, worse than no parents at an orphanage?

Is it not a possibility that in the case of same-sex parents that one might fill the gap normally filled by one of the opposite gender?

Are there any studies which compare two homosexual parents who are active in their child's life vs. two heterosexual parents who are not active in their child's life?

I do not claim to be an expert on child psychology. However, I am skeptical of gender stereotypes, even when quoted from publications, being used as a foundation of an argument.

Marriage, for all these reasons, is a major public health issue and not just a private affair. Marriages that are exclusive, permanent, unconditional, and life-giving contribute much to public health and longevity; marriages that fail any of these criteria and end in divorce create an enormous social, emotional, and health care burden for the couple, their children, and society.


So, gay marriage should be banned because gay people can't breed? I am forced to disagree. I don't have more points to make on that issue which I haven't said before, though.

****** A LITTLE Q and A

Legalization of same-sex marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace.


[...]

If same-sex couples won't reap the health and emotional benefits of marriage, why do they keep asking for legalization?


See my section above about how this topic should be approached. When making a law saying "You can't do foo", the justification needs to come from, "If foo happened, bad things would happen", not "there is no good reason to allow foo".

The reason probably is not economic, though many same-sex marriage advocates appeal to the economic benefits of marriage. A clever lawyer can create partnerships to confer most of the economic advantages of marriage. Durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance-any of these can be tailored to cover homosexual relationships without the need for marriage. There must be other reasons.


... so poor gays needn't have the same rights that poor straights have? Please.

Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute offers a possible explanation. In the September 2000 edition of Commentary, he quotes radical homosexuals who state that their goal is not personally to be married, nor to achieve domestic equality with heterosexuals, nor even to attain social respectability, but rather to empty the institution of marriage of its meaning.71


Pop quiz time, everyone.
1. If one one radical Republican Congressman had once favored slavery. That implies that the average Congressman:
a) is in favor of slavery, and the above paragraph is meaningful.
b) is not necessarally represented by the kookiest of his or her fellow Congressmen, and the above paragraph was a waste of my time.

[...]

The American constitutional tradition has been described as "ordered freedom." We have many rights, but the expression of any right is limited when it threatens harm to others. Free speech, for example, is almost unlimited, but no one is free to libel or slander someone else, nor to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.


You are only not allowed to libel or slander when it will fiscally affect you. In other words, it harms you. You are only not allowed to shout "Fire!" when doing so might cause a panic which could trample people and cause death. You have unlimited freedom until your freedom limits someone else's freedom or harms someone else. So, how does gay marriage affect your freedoms or harm you?

[...]

Marriage is not an unlimited right. It exists in a social context.


Homosexually exists in society. I'm not sure what point you are making here.

Its success or failure has public health and financial impacts.


As do hetero marriages. Perhaps even moreso. Many of the public health and financial impacts you mentioned involved children. Homosexual marriages cannot bring children into the world, so that's a non-issue.

Legalization of same-sex marriage would detach marriage from reality. It would deprive marriage not just of "bourgeois respectability," but of any objective meaning whatsoever. It would open the door to group marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other permutations the imagination can invent.


I already mentioned that I don't see a problem with group marriages.

A bestiality marriage doesn't even make sense, since an animal cannot consent. It's a poor comparison. Please let it die, already.

Why should we care? Because the survival and prosperity of our society rests on the institution of marriage. As we have seen, healthy citizens are far more likely to be produced by intact marriages than by broken ones. Same-sex marriage would empty marriage of its meaning, make heterosexual marriages even more disposable, and undermine the health of our nation.


I am more likely to not die in a car crash if I do not drive a car. Does that mean that I should not be able to drive a car? That is the equivilant to your argument.

And, us hetero folks, with the help of Las Vegas, are doing a good job at making marriages disposable all on our own, thank you very much.

*******MY CONCLUSION ***********

As I said, in spite of all this, I am still on the fence! I don't know what to think. I have many gay friends whom I care for deeply. I just feel that such MASSIVE changes are being force fed to society, a society that move slowly, yes, but does move.


Unfortunately, several states this past election took steps towards slowly banning homosexuality. That is the slippery slope we should be concerned about. The mob does not care for the minority.

Getting marriage equality will NOT end hate crimes and suuch. The gay movement, while well intentioned, is not using EDUCATION as a means of change; it is using activist judges.


Brian, doesn't unnecessary institutionalized bigotry against a particular minority group provide a justification for hate crimes on some level? Why should we expect better from the mob when the government can't follow the same moral guidelines?

[...]

The debate must, and will continue. There are compelling arguments from all sides.


Again, no, there really isn't. You've just repeated the same two arguements:
1. "Think of the children"
2. "We haven't done this before, so all chaos will break loose"

Those arguments are no more valid than they were 20 pages ago. :-P

1 is still wrong because we have little to no data about gay couples raising children. Hypothetically, if homosexual couples are by nature worser at parenting, there's no data saying that homosexual parents are worse than no parents. It's not like gay folks will start giving birth just because they can get married!

2 is still wrong because it has been the argument against every civil rights movement our country has seen. That reason was given to keep blacks in slavery. That reason was used to keep women from voting. It is used by the people in power to stay in power because they fear change. Unjustified fear is not a reason to deny one group of priviledges given to another group.

Oh, and if you email me or respond, please read all this. I did. Its only fair.


I did read. If we continue this conversation, I hope you answer some of the good questions Mike and I asked in your past post which you have yet to address.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: duckssaymip
2005-03-16 05:54 am (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. LJ-CUT. Jesus, you guys have lots of free time on your hands :P
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2005-03-16 05:55 am (UTC)
Heh. I didn't think it would take that long when I started it. :-P
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: duckssaymip
2005-03-16 06:24 am (UTC)
haha You didn't think responding point-by-point to the 20 pg article would take you that long?? I dunno, Chester... I think you're fibbing ;) LOL
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2005-03-16 06:26 am (UTC)
I tend to read as I reply with things this big. I didn't realize quite how big it was when I started.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2005-03-16 06:26 am (UTC)
Danke, sir.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: squeak217
2005-03-16 06:34 am (UTC)
i'm adding you to my friends list. basically, you're my hero. every single thing you've written here is exactly what i've been telling every person in my family for the past year or so, just more organized and concise. high five for being awesome!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2005-03-16 06:36 am (UTC)
Haha, thanks. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)