A Second Interview on the Michael Dresser Show

[Garak]

Pentium4 wrote:

Let me put in the simplest terms I can everyone.

The traditional family is threatened by ANY re-defiinition of family.

Since we know that heterosexual men will not be considered a part of any of these new definitions...tell me how it does not hurt the traditional family?

You declare that gay relationships harm the traditional family. Justify the claim. What evidence (not declarations, evidence) do you have that gay relationships of any sort harm the system of a man, woman, and children in a legally and/or religiously committed relationship.

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

However, when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

[Thomas]

Dr. Thomas, redefining the family to mother and children has caused tremendous damage to marriage and the birth rate. Adding more unnatural definitions will logically cause more damage since gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate (which affects the birth rate) and re-enforces the idea that marriage is no longer meant for heterosexual men.

First of all, gays and lesbians procreate about the same amount whether or not they are married. Secondly, it makes no sense to say that allowing gays to marry means that marriage is not meant for heterosexual men, or, for that matter, heterosexual women. If my wife and I buy bicycles, and then the couple across the street buys bicycles, it doesn't follow that my wife and I can no longer have bicycles.

[Thomas]

when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

Yes.

[Thomas]

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

Actually, it's been legal in a number of countries for several years now. I've never come across any evidence that this has caused heterosexuals in those countries to decide not to marry or not to procreate.

[Thomas]

As fun as this is, I've got to get back to work. If I don't reply to further comments, don't think I'm dissing anyone or that I agree or disagree. Just gone on to other pastures for now.

[Garak]

Dr. Thomas, redefining the family to mother and children has caused tremendous damage to marriage and the birth rate. Adding more unnatural definitions will logically cause more damage since gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate (which affects the birth rate) and re-enforces the idea that marriage is no longer meant for heterosexual men.

First of all, gays and lesbians procreate about the same amount whether or not they are married. Secondly, it makes no sense to say that allowing gays to marry means that marriage is not meant for heterosexual men, or, for that matter, heterosexual women. If my wife and I buy bicycles, and then the couple across the street buys bicycles, it doesn't follow that my wife and I can no longer have bicycles.

Gays and lesbians cannot procreate within the structure of their marriage (if it is a gay marriage) because biology won't allow it.


First of all, do you have evidence that gays and lesbians procreate about the same amount?

You are looking at the logic. Logically it is true that allowing gay marriage doesn't stop traditional marriage. However, put your logic aside for the moment and look how re-defining the family (mother and her children) has eroded traditional marriage. The new logic suggests that more re-defining would erode traditional marriage even further. Men have no confidence in a legal institution that has been redefined not to include them.

[Garak]

As fun as this is, I've got to get back to work. If I don't reply to further comments, don't think I'm dissing anyone or that I agree or disagree. Just gone on to other pastures for now.

Well, we may have to agree to disagree but I read an opinion piece (not that it changed my mind as I was already like minded on the issue) a few days ago posted on antimisandry.com. I will attempt to find it. It will probably get the point across better than I can.

[Lazurite]

Pentium4 wrote:

Let me put in the simplest terms I can everyone.

The traditional family is threatened by ANY re-defiinition of family.

Since we know that heterosexual men will not be considered a part of any of these new definitions...tell me how it does not hurt the traditional family?

You declare that gay relationships harm the traditional family. Justify the claim. What evidence (not declarations, evidence) do you have that gay relationships of any sort harm the system of a man, woman, and children in a legally and/or religiously committed relationship.

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

However, when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

Certainly it has, but that's a different set of circumstances.  In the case of gay marriage, we're allowing couples who didn't get marriage benefits to have them.  They didn't participate in heterosexual marriages to begin with, nor will they interfere with them in the future.  The traditional model is left intact and can exist alongside same-sex marriages.  In the case of defining a family as a woman and her children, it's deliberately and specifically changing the traditional model in such a way as to make men unnecessary.

[Garak]

Here is the opinion piece:

By now even the most obtuse Fathers Rights advocate must see at least the broad outlines of the feminist War on Fatherhood. The normalization of homosexuality, now complete in Massachusetts with the legislature's refusal to allow the citizens to vote on the matter, is one more theater of operations in this ongoing war.

What is happening right under our noses is the transformation of 'family,' the fundamental building block not only of society, but of civilization itself throughout recorded history.

Biology removed from the definition of 'family'

Gay marriage proponents use as one of their friendly slogans: "Love makes a family." Well, actually, no it doesn't. To be perfectly frank, a penis and a vagina make a family. If you find that crude, take it up with Mother Nature. It is she who optimized the process for the procreation of life on planet Earth two billion years ago with the invention of sexual reproduction.


http://blogwonks.com/category/feminist-justice/

[Garak]

Pentium4 wrote:

Let me put in the simplest terms I can everyone.

The traditional family is threatened by ANY re-defiinition of family.

Since we know that heterosexual men will not be considered a part of any of these new definitions...tell me how it does not hurt the traditional family?

You declare that gay relationships harm the traditional family. Justify the claim. What evidence (not declarations, evidence) do you have that gay relationships of any sort harm the system of a man, woman, and children in a legally and/or religiously committed relationship.

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

However, when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

Certainly it has, but that's a different set of circumstances.  In the case of gay marriage, we're allowing couples who didn't get marriage benefits to have them.  They didn't participate in heterosexual marriages to begin with, nor will they interfere with them in the future.  The traditional model is left intact and can exist alongside same-sex marriages.  In the case of defining a family as a woman and her children, it's deliberately and specifically changing the traditional model in such a way as to make men unnecessary.

Read this opinion piece. I cannot get my thoughts on this out as clearly.

[Lazurite]

Pentium4 wrote:

Let me put in the simplest terms I can everyone.

The traditional family is threatened by ANY re-defiinition of family.

Since we know that heterosexual men will not be considered a part of any of these new definitions...tell me how it does not hurt the traditional family?

You declare that gay relationships harm the traditional family. Justify the claim. What evidence (not declarations, evidence) do you have that gay relationships of any sort harm the system of a man, woman, and children in a legally and/or religiously committed relationship.

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

However, when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

Certainly it has, but that's a different set of circumstances.  In the case of gay marriage, we're allowing couples who didn't get marriage benefits to have them.  They didn't participate in heterosexual marriages to begin with, nor will they interfere with them in the future.  The traditional model is left intact and can exist alongside same-sex marriages.  In the case of defining a family as a woman and her children, it's deliberately and specifically changing the traditional model in such a way as to make men unnecessary.

Read this opinion piece. I cannot get my thoughts on this out as clearly.

I read it, but it still doesn't seem to offer a real concrete relationship between extending marriage to same-sex couples and the decay of more traditional family units.  Also, the only reason it gives that homosexuality is a bad thing at all is that it's unnatural, and I don't agree that being unnatural automatically makes something immoral.

[Garak]

Pentium4 wrote:

Let me put in the simplest terms I can everyone.

The traditional family is threatened by ANY re-defiinition of family.

Since we know that heterosexual men will not be considered a part of any of these new definitions...tell me how it does not hurt the traditional family?

You declare that gay relationships harm the traditional family. Justify the claim. What evidence (not declarations, evidence) do you have that gay relationships of any sort harm the system of a man, woman, and children in a legally and/or religiously committed relationship.

I have no evidence as gay marriage is barely legal so far.

However, when family was re-defined to mean mother and her children, it has had an effect on the willingness of men to marry and procreate....do you agree?

Certainly it has, but that's a different set of circumstances.  In the case of gay marriage, we're allowing couples who didn't get marriage benefits to have them.  They didn't participate in heterosexual marriages to begin with, nor will they interfere with them in the future.  The traditional model is left intact and can exist alongside same-sex marriages.  In the case of defining a family as a woman and her children, it's deliberately and specifically changing the traditional model in such a way as to make men unnecessary.

Read this opinion piece. I cannot get my thoughts on this out as clearly.

I read it, but it still doesn't seem to offer a real concrete relationship between extending marriage to same-sex couples and the decay of more traditional family units.  Also, the only reason it gives that homosexuality is a bad thing at all is that it's unnatural, and I don't agree that being unnatural automatically makes something immoral.

Feminism has made a career of fighting biology. Gay marriage is an extension of that and will help feminism promote that biology is unimportant.

What has been the result of promoting that biology is unimportant so far?

[Lazurite]

Feminism has made a career of fighting biology. Gay marriage is an extension of that and will help feminism promote that biology is unimportant.

What has been the result of promoting that biology is unimportant so far?

At this point, I think I must respectfully ask that we agree to disagree, as our assumptions are so different that I can't see us finding any common ground in the near future.  As I understand it, you believe that the current state of gender relations and men's rights is a result of willfully ignoring the built-in biological tendencies of the sexes.  I believe it results from rewarding women whether they choose to take traditionally masculine or feminine roles while punishing men no matter if they choose a masculine or feminine role.  In any case, I'm bisexual and a transhumanist, so I feel no obligation to play the hand I've been dealt by biology.

[Garak]

Feminism has made a career of fighting biology. Gay marriage is an extension of that and will help feminism promote that biology is unimportant.

What has been the result of promoting that biology is unimportant so far?

At this point, I think I must respectfully ask that we agree to disagree, as our assumptions are so different that I can't see us finding any common ground in the near future.  As I understand it, you believe that the current state of gender relations and men's rights is a result of willfully ignoring the built-in biological tendencies of the sexes.  I believe it results from rewarding women whether they choose to take traditionally masculine or feminine roles while punishing men no matter if they choose a masculine or feminine role.  In any case, I'm bisexual and a transhumanist, so I feel no obligation to play the hand I've been dealt by biology.

On the matter of procreation (which was the subject Thomas' interview), biology cannot be disputed (1 man and 1 woman) but yes we will have to agree to disagree.

That feminists have been fighting it (and now using gay rights to fight it) is causing the problem with marriage and birth rates.

[The Gonzman]

At this point, I think I must respectfully ask that we agree to disagree, as our assumptions are so different that I can't see us finding any common ground in the near future. 

That's fine.

I am concerned with the rights of a natyural father with his children, and those of a lawfully adoptive father with his children.

I have no interest at all in furthering the agenda of a movement that defines fatherhood as fungible.  As a father, I am not replaceable by a second woman.  The same goes with mothers.  Gay people may or may not be able to choose who they are attracted to, but they sure as God Made Little Green Apples are able to choose who they procreate with, and as far as I am concerned, if you bring a child into this world with the specific intent of dis-involving one or both natural parents, you are a child abuser, and unfit to be a parent.

What I will support is the abolishment of secular marriage, removal of laws which give automatic benefits to married couples, allowing people to make civil domestic contracts - without a "one size fits all" contract - and returning marriage to the domain of religion from whence it arose to begin with.