Blog powered by Typepad

« The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage | Main | Lewis v. Harris: Appellate Division »

June 14, 2005

Comments

Marty

Well then we agree. Since no child is conceived apart from a femaile mother and a male father, and we agree that this mother and father should be (and remain) married to each other, what are we arguing about?

Galois

what are we arguing about?

I don't know. We seem to agree on this matter. That is possible, you know.

On Lawn

So "permanent guardian" and "parent" are synonymous or at least adequate substitutions to still relay your point?

Ditto on the Civil Union Marriage?

Heres what it looks like now:

A - It is a great benefit to children if they have two permenant guardians that they are united in Civil Union. B - The set of all the arguments in favor of allowing the two permenant guardians to have civil unions.

A exists in B.

BTW: what do you mean by "permenant" guardian? What mechanism denotes the permenance to you?

PS: I think we'll be ready to roll assuming there is nothing left to clarify after your answers.

Galois

So "permanent guardian" and "parent" are synonymous or at least adequate substitutions to still relay your point? Ditto on the Civil Union Marriage?

Well they are certainly not synonymous, but many of the reasons that marriage would benefit the child would also apply to cvil union. Likewise many of the reasons why it is beneficial for the parents of a child to be married (or in civil union) it seems it would also imply it is beneficial for permanent joint guardians to be married (or in civil union) (and bearing in mind I don't know so much about guardianships).

So I would tend to agree with your claim for many of the reasons I agreed with my original claim.

what do you mean by "permenant" guardian? What mechanism denotes the permenance to you?

I discoverd there are many different guardianship arrangements out there and they vary from state to state and even within one state there may be several different forms of guardianship. In some cases a guardian is appointed for a time being or for limited purposes. Usually a parent can terminate guardianship at any point. Some states, like Oregon, though apparently have a permanent guardianship option which seems more like adoption. This page writes:


These are guardianships, which are difficult to terminate, and are designed for children who have been in state custody. For example, Oregon has a permanent guardianship status that may only be granted by the juvenile court after it is proven that it is in the best interest of the child that the birth parent should never have physical custody of the child. A birth parent is prohibited from petitioning the court to terminate this permanent guardianship once it is granted. When assessing options, a relative caregiver should be aware of whether permanent guardianship exists, and how it is defined, in his or her state. For a copy of the Oregon law governing permanent guardianships, go to http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/419b.html and scroll down to 419B.365. [link corrected]

It doesn't mention anything about joint guardianships, but supposing they existed, I think it would be benefiical to the child if those joint permanent guardians were united in marriage or civil union. It's difficult to say anything in general about guardinships, though, because it is clear there are likely to be unusual and unforseen circumstances. Still, speaking generally, the child should not be placed into two separate families, but rather into one family.

PS: I think we'll be ready to roll assuming there is nothing left to clarify after your answers.

Great! Does that mean you're finally going to tell me the claim that you were making way back when you were using reductio ad absurdum?

Marty

Careful fellas, i've covered this ground here before -- i don't thing Galois uses the same definition of "parent" that the rest of us do. For him, "parent" is a purely social construct -- a legal fiction, if you will -- that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental modes of conception or biological kinship. Isn't that right G?

On Lawn


Allright folks, watch for my reply at Opine Editorials sometime between 2-3pm Pacific Time.

Galois, the reductio ad absurdum was already posted in my first response to this thread. All you've done is show that Op-Ed was right on every count. Thanks for playing...

Galois

Marty, No that's not right. I simply believe "parent" also includes those who adopt, and I don't personally know anyone that wouldn't use it that way.

Galois, the reductio ad absurdum was already posted in my first response to this thread.

No it wasn't. As part of such an argument you need to make a claim that you set out to demonstrate. Nowhere do you make such a claim, and I've now asked for one maybe six times and you still haven't said what your claim is. When you're trying to distort my positions you can say A: "......." B: ".....", but when it comes to your own positions, you can only make vague references to things you've already written and insist it's in there somewhere although for some reason you refuse to identify it.

In the first post on this thread, in fact, you made it clear that you weren't actually making any arguement, but rather engaging in ad hominem as you wrote:


Extending the premise says may nothing about the argument itself, then it says much about the person positing the argument.

I have given you plenty of opportunity to make an argument for youself, but instead you're "playing" some game. It seems like you've just been wasting my time as you continue to try to use this space as free advertising to try to increase your web traffic. Oh well. I should have known better.

Marty

Interesting, suddenly we seem to agree on almost everything...

So, since you agree that children need and deserve both their mother and father (ideally married to each other), and you personally think that those mothers and fathers who adopt are also "parents" (i agree), then by what stretch of the imagination could you approve of two-dads or two-moms adopting orphaned children, or creating them out of a laboratory with some anonymous third-party software, and calling themselves "parents" when something is so glaringly missing from the child's "family"? And how again does this tragic experiment justify making those two "parents" a Marriagable combination?

(Sorry, i wasn't goint to interrupt the whole A-B thing, but G's sudden "reasonable agreement" on everything has got me befuddled :P)

Galois

Marty,

We agree about something. It is clear we don't agree on almost everything as we seem to have widely differing views on adoption. You seem to think that if a child is adopted by a couple of the opposite sex, then it matters if they are married, but if they are adopted by a couple of the same sex then not only does it not matter if they are married, but it is preferable if they are not. I can't understand that.

As for ART, my positions on that are influenced by my religious teachings and touch on difficult ethical issues and I refuse to discuss that matter with you. For the sake of argument you can assume I oppose ART and would prefer couples who would use it to adopt instead. But does it follow that for couples who use it anyway it doesn't matter if they are married. Is it preferable that a heterosexual couple which uses ART be unmarried so that the biological mother might someday track down the donor and marry him? No. If a couple has one child naturally and another through AD, and they later divorce, is it believable that the divorce would have a great impact on the one child and no impact on the other? No. If a heterosexual couple used ART would you say they aren't parents? Would you say they aren't a family?

Your problems seem to be with a child having parents of the same sex. Fine. In Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, etc. a child does have parents of the same sex. The question is whether the child would benefit from the marriage of those parents? If you don't think the child would, then say so, but the fact that you don't think they should be parents in the first place is well established and not particularly relevant to the question at hand.

The fact that same sex couples are parents does not make them marriagable. They would be marriagable anyway as a number of same sex couples without children have been married. In Europe I belive both Belgium and The Netherlands permitted to same sex couplpes to marry while prohibiting them from joint adoption. In any case, people have asked what benefit there would be from permitting same sex couples to marry and the benefit there would be for these children should not be discarded because you don't wish to consider them a family.

On Lawn

Galois,

No it wasn't.

Yes it was :)

you made it clear that you weren't actually making any arguement

Actually you were the one who clearly stated you weren't making any argument for calling same sex couples "married".

No. I'm not saying this infers that same-sex copules [sic] should be allowed to marry.

you're trying to distort my positions

Funny, I've been very careful to not distort your position. I've gone out of my way to listen to you and try to figure out just how you get from your stated argument to your position in Oregon. Yet even with this painstaking attempt to listen you try to resort to this "appeal to accusation".

And just an edit:

Extending the premise may say nothing about the argument itself, then it says much about the person positing the argument.

Which is true when a contradiction gained by extending the premise comes from the person and not the argument. When we see a contradiction where the argument expects harmony, that denotes prejudice.

Marty,

Bang on cue! We worry about the surrogacy industry, but imagine the orphan industry. All these unwanted babies created solely to justify the state's recognition of an impersonation of marriage. Its a supply and demand crisis that the medical industry must be licking its chops to fulfill.

But its worse than that. Look again at Galois's insistance that his argument apply to "permanent" guardians. Then he points out how "permanent" guardians in Oregon law are court appointed relatinoship that a "birth parent is prohibited from petitioning the court to terminate ... once it is granted".

We know that some of these children would be provided by (as you call it) "third party software" where responsible procreation is nothing more than a supply and demand commercial endeavor of the medical industry and bio-parent-for-hire. But we also know that some of these cases are created by divorce. In fact right now a majority of these cases are from divorce. One member of a marriage decides they like their own gender better and, well, let me come at this another way: How important then would the courts ability to lock out the birth parent be in a case where a divorcee wishes to truely divorce themselves from the need to comprimise with a member of the opposite sex? How important would it be for the court to see a same-sex couple as married to accomplish that?

Thirty years ago people would have never believed that Roe v Wade would lead to abortions of 8 1/2 month babies. One would have never concieved that the inconvenience of life and right to choose not to be inconvenienced would even lead people to kill babies with birth defects as Dr's in Sweden recently admitted to. And now integration with another sex is just another inconvenience for the state and medical industry to overcome. And where that will lead only the real drivers behind this movement know, and they dare not tell us (hence all the backpeddling we watched Galois go through on this thread and others).

On Lawn


BTW, about three hours and counting for the real reply. (I'm not discussing anything here that'll steal its thunder, I promise :)

Marty

Your problems seem to be with a child having parents of the same sex. Fine. ... The question is whether the child would benefit from the marriage of those parents?

Not quite the same. I am opposed to SSM for a number of reasons, but if the voters decide to legalize it, i can live with that decision.

What is most galling however, is all this talk of discrimination and rights. The same-sex parents who suddenly feel like they deserve a right to same-sex marriage knew darned well what they were getting themselves into when they adopted children or chose ART. If their children are being denied anything, they have only their parents to blame. Their parents knew the boundaries of marriage, and willfully chose an option outside the line.

Seems kind of silly (pathetic, and often pathological too) for them (and you) to now say "Well since it would be better for our children to be on the inside, society will just have to redraw the boundary."

Galois

I see, Marty. Well in this case I was talking about what benefits same-sex marriage could provide, ie the policy question which Hayleyanne asked about. In the context of legal cases, the argument is not that they have children, therefore they have the right to marry. In fact, they argue that the right to marriage is not based on whether one has or will have children. The issue of children is raised sometimes by the state which says the state has an interest in prohibiting the couple from marrying because marriage is about raising children. At that point, they respond back they also raise children. But they never claim that their right to marriage is based on the children.

Mr. John Howard

When the state prohibits a couple from marrying, it is ALWAYS to prohibit them from creating children together. It never has anything to do with prohibiting them from raising children they may already have. A brother and sister who each have children from previous marriages are not prohibited from raising them together, but they are prohibited from marrying. Why?

On Lawn

I was talking about what benefits same-sex marriage could provide ... the argument is not that they have children, therefore they have the right to marry.

Ithink the discussion about benefits is what people are talking about. I had said in response to Marty...

We know that some of these children would be provided by (as you call it) "third party software" where responsible procreation is nothing more than a supply and demand commercial endeavor of the medical industry and bio-parent-for-hire. But we also know that some of these cases are created by divorce. In fact right now a majority of these cases are from divorce. One member of a marriage decides they like their own gender better and, well, let me come at this another way: How important then would the courts ability to lock out the birth parent be in a case where a divorcee wishes to truely divorce themselves from the need to comprimise with a member of the opposite sex? How important would it be for the court to see a same-sex couple as married to accomplish that?

And as far as I can tell Marty didn't state "therefore" either:

The same-sex parents who suddenly feel like they deserve a right to same-sex marriage knew darned well what they were getting themselves into when they adopted children or chose ART. If their children are being denied anything, they have only their parents to blame. Their parents knew the boundaries of marriage, and willfully chose an option outside the line. [emphasis mine]

Marty clearly and accurately addressed how they feel they deserve the right, rather than inferred the right directly.

ie the policy question which Hayleyanne asked about.

As you chose not to respond to Marty or myself, lets see what Haleyanne says. We find that Haleyanne addressed this concern also...

On the other hand, the world is changing. Technological change has made it possible for gay couples to produce children through artificial insemination. Surrogate mothers have emerged. Adoption laws have changed to allow some gay couples to adopt. More acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in some people who were in traditional marriages with kids, coming out as gay. The reality is that we are now in a situation where gay couples are indeed raising children. How they got these kids raises some problematic issues for some people. One need only read some of the comments on your blog to see this. They wonder about the biological parent and what happened to him or her. They wonder about whether children need both a male and a female influence in their lives. Etc. I think these concerns are valid.

To which you replied...

...

Mr. John Howard is probably the most relevant in his reply in when he addresses just how more congruent marriage's role in society is when procreation is addressed. Children exist, but not without procreation. Its like the old addage, take care of the dimes and the dollars take care of themselves. Marriage takes care of procreation which when applied correctly takes care of children.

Gallagher notes the marriage covenant as something the people themselves enter into to validate themselves and their procreation as noted by Galois:

Despite changing attitudes toward sex and gender roles, the substance of the marriage vow as Americans understand it has changed surprising little. Marriage is, above all, seen as a permanent union ("until death do us part"), which includes the promise of sexual union ("forsaking all others"), of financial union ("with all my worldly goods I do thee endow"), and of mutual support ("to love, honor, and cherish").

Each part of this public vow is part of the punch marriage packs, the secret to its power to change lives. But if one part of this package is more important than the others, it is probably the promise of permanence.

The promise of permanence is key to marriage's transformative power. People who expect to be part of a couple for their entire lives--unless something awful happens--organize their lives differently from people who are less certain their relationship will last. The marriage contract, because it is long-term, encourages husbands and wives to make decisions jointly and to function as part of a team. Each spouse expects to be able to count on the other to be there and to fulfill his or her responsibilities. This expectation of a long-term working relationship between husband and wife leads to substantial changes in their behavior, of which the most important is, perhaps, what economists call specialization.

This trasformative power is not coincidentally connected (though we may be lead to believe it is nothing more or less than coincedence) with another transoformative power noted by a new book (interview at Time).

Also of note: the quote from Hayleyanne is from the previous article, Galois' first utterance of her or her position in this article happened just now in that post. Of course who he is replying to is inconsequential, what matters is *what* he is replying to. Yep, just as marriage makes us smarter so does procreation. A great article on how marriage and procreation are manifestations of the same social and biological phenomenon is here.

One could call this argument of Galois as a bastardization on many levels. Instead of considering the children itis is nothing more than a hostage taking. It is his version of a Parent Trap. Part two is due out again today at the same time.

vch

divino lesbiche spogliarello
divino masturbare
divino modesto
divino nubile
divino porno star
divino ragazze gruppo
divino ragazze sex
divino sborra
divino segretaria doppio penetrazione
divino sorrisi
divino swinger
divino vergine
divx porno
do it yourself
docce calde di sborra
docce nudi
doccia aspo
doccia cristallo
doccia donne incinte
doccia galleria
doccia incasso
doccia novellini
doccia sexi
doccia tatami
i sederi nudi piu sexy gratis
i tuoi
i video piu visti sex
iasi
ideal standard
idraulico azione
idraulico dildo in casa
idraulico diteggiatura in villaggio
idraulico fotti in pace
idraulico frode in ufficio
idraulico gruppo nella stanza
idraulico inculate nell appartamento
idraulico masturbate nel bagno
idraulico merda nell appartamento
idraulico pompino nella residenza
idraulico prostituta sulla riunione
idraulico sesso sul yacht
idraulico spogliarello in villaggio
idraulico strip sul yacht
idraulico succhi sul partito
idraulico ubriache nella stanza
igiene orale
il
il castello sadomaso
il cazzo nella figa

nosevilagesjoan


Buy VIAGRA and Enjoy! VIAGRA (generic) 90 pills x 100mg 139.95$
http://www.drugsmarket.medsjoy.biz>cost V
I - buy cheap VIAGRA
AGRA - how VIAGRA works

Achetez en ligne VIAGRA bon marché
http://www.acheterviagra.medsjoy.biz/Viagra.htm>VIAGRA de promotion - VIAGRA en ligne

Bestellen Sie VIAGRA CIALIS online
http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/Viagra.htm>krauter-VIAGRA - Vorschrift VIAGRA

Más razonablemente descuento de VIAGRA
http://www.comprarviagra.medsjoy.biz/Viagra.htm>VIAGRA herbario alternativo - compra en linea VIAGRA

Bpmhalrqxz

If you want to understand in and you should necessarily visit our portal. Besides only at our web-site you can find such detailed pictures:
The qualitative materials connected with themes , presented on our site. Here we have few themed pictures:
You can find the exclusive information about only at our portal
In the work connected with you can’t do anything without authentic and actual information: our site is necessary for you!
Now you can learn much about , but so many unique facts you will find only at our site! And also pictures:
The full information about only on our site! Besides that, only at our web-site you can find such detailed pictures:
New portal devoted to havebeen opened Besides that, only at our web-site you can find such detailed pictures:
Materials of our portal will be useful to you at work with and themes. Pay attention to pictures on this theme:
With help of our service you can begin work with . See it on the following pictures:
Do you want to learn more about ? Then you are very close to it. Link to our site! Evident pictures:


http://auto-leave.com/cars5/1957-ford-pickup-parts/auto-injury-lawyer.html>auto injury lawyer
http://auto-leave.com/cars5/1957-ford-pickup-parts/antique-ford-truck-parts.html>antique ford truck parts
http://auto-leave.com/cars2/2007-bmw-parts-manual/parts-suzuki-motorcycle.html>parts suzuki motorcycle
http://auto-leave.com/cars5/honda-goldwing-1200-1986-parts/1950-mercury-parts.html>1950 mercury parts
http://auto-leave.com/cars2/2007-bmw-parts-manual/sitemap33.html>auto site
http://auto-leave.com/cars5/honda-goldwing-1200-1986-parts/jeep-j20-body-parts.html>jeep j20 body parts
http://auto-leave.com/cars5/honda-goldwing-1200-1986-parts/thrifty-car-rental-miami.html>thrifty car rental miami
http://auto-leave.com/cars3/old-ford-parts/sitemap27.html>auto site
http://auto-leave.com/cars5/honda-goldwing-1200-1986-parts/sitemap28.html>auto site
http://auto-leave.com/cars2/2007-bmw-parts-manual/sitemap9.html>auto site
korenetorpi981
Do you have great desire to learn about ? Our server is ready to satisfy your interest. Pay attention to pictures on this theme:
It is not necessary to be afraid of something new. New things – the progress engine. Visit our portal and get acquainted with . More details in those pictures:
Let's answer on interesting questions about More details in those pictures:
All secrets of only at our site. Also pictures:
We do not promise easy money, but if you agree to work and earn, you can find us by following requests . Besides that, only at our web-site you can find such detailed pictures:
This site will give you the widest information about Also pictures:
We have exclusive offer for you - only here and only now! Click here (link) and find all information about and of course about .
Can’t find something interesting in Internet? Learn about , or at our site! Only at our web-site best pictures on this theme:
You can receive detailed answers at the questions connected with operation of on our site, It becomes more clearly on the pictures:
If you need help with you can find it here Also pictures:

The comments to this entry are closed.