A Second Interview on the Michael Dresser Show

[Lazurite]

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.

Interestingly, we share a lot of common ground here.  I agree that bringing a new life into being with the specific intent of excluding its natural parents is abusive, and shouldn't be done.  Using someone for procreation then dropping them for someone else the moment you have the child is a despicable act.

Also, I would completely support a separation of the legal institution of marriage from the religious institution of marriage.  Allowing couples of any gender mix to have such a contract while returning control of the religious aspect of marriage to the church would go a long way toward getting everyone what they want.  Religious groups wouldn't be forced to recognize as marriage something they didn't believe in, and gay couples wouldn't be forced to do without the legal conveniences marriage provides.

[Garak]

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.

Interestingly, we share a lot of common ground here.  I agree that bringing a new life into being with the specific intent of excluding its natural parents is abusive, and shouldn't be done.  Using someone for procreation then dropping them for someone else the moment you have the child is a despicable act.

Also, I would completely support a separation of the legal institution of marriage from the religious institution of marriage.  Allowing couples of any gender mix to have such a contract while returning control of the religious aspect of marriage to the church would go a long way toward getting everyone what they want.  Religious groups wouldn't be forced to recognize as marriage something they didn't believe in, and gay couples wouldn't be forced to do without the legal conveniences marriage provides.

...and yet you support gay marraige which the religious institutions would never support.

[Lazurite]

...and yet you support gay marraige which the religious institutions would never support.

I support gay marriage in the name of extending to gay couples the legal conveniences that straight married couples enjoy.  The right to be considered family for the purposes of visiting one's partner in the hospital for example, and control of property automatically going to the surviving partner in the event of one's death.  Yes, it is possible to work around most of it, but that's what it is, a clumsy workaround.  Separating the religious ceremony from the legal status would be to everyone's benefit.

[The Gonzman]

No - getting government out of the business of administering the religious sacrament of marriage is just that.  All the way.

You don't force anyone to recognize a religious marriage.

You don't forbid them from it.

You want a contract?  The government can enforce contracts.

[Pat Kibbon]

"Gay marriage" may not have a direct impact on "hetrosexual marriage".  It does, however, have a significant impact on society in general.  There are very sound reasons to distinguish between heterosexual relationships and other types of relationships.

When a man has sex with a man or a woman with a woman, I'm sure it is a lot of fun for them; but, it cannot lead to procreation and therefore neither society nor government have any significant pragmatic interest in the relationships of the people involved.

When a man and a woman come together in sexual congress, there is a potential to procreate.  Children who are not properly raised to be members of society grow up and cause damage to society.  Therefore, Both society and government have an interest in encouraging and nurturing the parents' relationship, the structure in which the child shall be raised.

While their is no reason that two people should be prevented from entering into a contractual partnership, it is important that a potentially procreative relationship be given special consideration.

[Garak]

"Gay marriage" may not have a direct impact on "hetrosexual marriage".  It does, however, have a significant impact on society in general.  There are very sound reasons to distinguish between heterosexual relationships and other types of relationships.

When a man has sex with a man or a woman with a woman, I'm sure it is a lot of fun for them; but, it cannot lead to procreation and therefore neither society nor government have any significant pragmatic interest in the relationships of the people involved.

When a man and a woman come together in sexual congress, there is a potential to procreate.  Children who are not properly raised to be members of society grow up and cause damage to society.  Therefore, Both society and government have an interest in encouraging and nurturing the parents' relationship, the structure in which the child shall be raised.

While their is no reason that two people should be prevented from entering into a contractual partnership, it is important that a potentially procreative relationship be given special consideration.

Thanks Pat.

[Pat Kibbon]

you're welcome!

[CaptDMO]

...and yet you support gay marraige which the religious institutions would never support.

  The right to be considered family for the purposes of visiting one's partner in the hospital for example,

Advance directive, Limited Power of Attorney. In NH, ONE piece of paper, three signatures,  ONE minute, at most hospitals, NO FEE.

and control of property automatically going to the surviving partner in the event of one's death.

Limited Liability Partnership. $100 with an accountant or lawyer, about as much as  a "civil" wedding. 

Yes, it is possible to work around most of it, but that's what it is, a clumsy workaround.

Actually, it's unarguably sharper in law than the vague implications of marriage so often nullified in "special" courts.

Separating the religious ceremony from the legal status would be to everyone's benefit.

Determined assault on the traditional ceremonies and rites practiced by established religious organisations that MAY just be overtly critical of, and decry homosexual practice, its allies, and and its defenders, would certainly be a  hypocritical and disingenuous approach, especially if seeking legal status to further disestablish
religious spiritual pursuit.

In other words, I continue to call bullshit on this line of reasoning that is simply
a softening of a position that, historically, has been erroneously recited by disingenuous dupes, with the sole intention of accommodating group approval, and recognition of "special rights" where none exist nor have been earned.

Normally, I wouldn't take such a strong position, it's just when I see the same debunked lies shoveled out, expecting to gain traction over time, I find it as offensive to the truth as the second  time I was expected to listen to the Nigerian variation of the Spanish Prisoner scam, or the second time I was expected to remain seated, quietly  enduring " Modern American Women are Oppressed Because....!"

[Lazurite]

"Gay marriage" may not have a direct impact on "hetrosexual marriage".  It does, however, have a significant impact on society in general.  There are very sound reasons to distinguish between heterosexual relationships and other types of relationships.

When a man has sex with a man or a woman with a woman, I'm sure it is a lot of fun for them; but, it cannot lead to procreation and therefore neither society nor government have any significant pragmatic interest in the relationships of the people involved.

When a man and a woman come together in sexual congress, there is a potential to procreate.  Children who are not properly raised to be members of society grow up and cause damage to society.  Therefore, Both society and government have an interest in encouraging and nurturing the parents' relationship, the structure in which the child shall be raised.

While their is no reason that two people should be prevented from entering into a contractual partnership, it is important that a potentially procreative relationship be given special consideration.

But in the current system, we give many couples special consideration that aren't potentially procreative.  Couples carrying physical or genetic defects that make them sterile, for example, or couples too old to bear children.  Besides that, there are married couples that are financially unable to support a child or emotionally unfit to be a parent, and an increasing number of couples simply choose not to have children, and use vasectomies and tubal ligations to ensure that they don't.  And yet they still get the benefits of marriage, even if they don't or can't hold up their end of the implied social contract by producing offspring.

[Lazurite]

Determined assault on the traditional ceremonies and rites practiced by established religious organisations that MAY just be overtly critical of, and decry homosexual practice, its allies, and and its defenders, would certainly be a  hypocritical and disingenuous approach, especially if seeking legal status to further disestablish
religious spiritual pursuit.

In other words, I continue to call bullshit on this line of reasoning that is simply
a softening of a position that, historically, has been erroneously recited by disingenuous dupes, with the sole intention of accommodating group approval, and recognition of "special rights" where none exist nor have been earned.

Normally, I wouldn't take such a strong position, it's just when I see the same debunked lies shoveled out, expecting to gain traction over time, I find it as offensive to the truth as the second  time I was expected to listen to the Nigerian variation of the Spanish Prisoner scam, or the second time I was expected to remain seated, quietly  enduring " Modern American Women are Oppressed Because....!"

As you say, you can get equivalents, in a variety of separate legal documents.  Good luck if you happen to forget one of them, or getting all of them to cross state boundaries.  I'd also invite you to consider that as it stands, marriage is basically a religious practice enshrined in law, as you yourself admit.  Corruption of conservative religious values would not be an issue if the government were removed from the affair entirely.

[dr e]

What Pat Kibbon said.

The traditional family has been under attack and a big part of that attack is minimizing the importance of fathers.  Couple this with the villification of men, the glorification of women, no-fault divorce, the breakdown of traditional sex roles and what do you get?  You get the mess we are in today.    "Anyone can do it" is the mantra of the "it takes a village" crowd.  Women can be fathers better than men.  etc etc.  By claiming that same sex marriages are equal to hetero marriages you dilute the idea of marriage.  In my view same sex marriage doesn't cause the breakdown in marriages but it is one element that has been thrown in the mix that has resulted in the increased hatred of men, boys, and fathers.

[Thomas]

Dropping back in, hopefully not to just fan any flames.

Actually, this is a good discussion: Strongly held beliefs about a hot button issue, but little or nothing in the way of ad hominum. Hurray for us!

There are two primary reasons that I see for gay marriage or, alternatively, civil unions. The first is spousal coverage under employees' health care benefits. The second is for immigration purposes. It strikes me as horrible that two people, who love each other, might not be able to live together because they are from different countries and happen to be the same sex. People of opposite sexes could marry and somewhat easily work out immigration status.

Gonzo brought up a good point, though, about the role of the father. It raises the question of whether any woman should be able to be artificially inseminated unless a man is legally part of the agreement and that man will have the role of father with full rights and responsibilities. Men and women are fundamentally very different (despite absurd and thoroughly debunked feminist declarations to the contrary), and so a child is ideally raised by a father and a mother. It brings balance. On the other hand, two mothers or two fathers might well be better than no parent, so it might make sense to allow homosexual couples to adopt.

Thoughts?

[Thomas]

dr e wrote:

In my view same sex marriage doesn't cause the breakdown in marriages but it is one element that has been thrown in the mix that has resulted in the increased hatred of men, boys, and fathers.

My take on this is that same sex marriage has been used as part of the juggernaut against males (and, ultimately, all of developed society) but that same sex marriage is not by its nature anti-male or anti-traditional family.

I'm going to point out the obvious here, so please accept my apologies. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence; I want to emphasize some points.

In the '60s, blacks/"coloreds" were often not allowed to drink out of water fountains for whites. They were forced to use separate, and often unkempt restrooms. Voting districts were gerrymandered to weaken the influence of black voters. There was a whole list of offenses against blacks. Likewise, homosexuals were discriminated against. Such injustices against consenting adults culminated in the Stonewall riots, in NYC.

Unfortunately, while legitimate civil rights movements were growing, the anti-male hate movement of radical feminism took deep root. Before long, these feminists came to have a strong influence on the entire civil rights movement. In time, we saw the likes of Martin Luther King supplanted by the likes of Al Sharpton. Valid civil rights movements were co-opted by a hate movement.

What I'm getting at is the fact that, while gay marriage is often used as a weapon against the traditional family, it is not by its nature anti-traditional family. Gays deserve certain rights, irrespective of how hateful radicals are using the gay rights movement.

[The Gonzman]

What I'm getting at is the fact that, while gay marriage is often used as a weapon against the traditional family, it is not by its nature anti-traditional family. Gays deserve certain rights, irrespective of how hateful radicals are using the gay rights movement.

Gays first have a responsibility to divorce themselves from such radicals.

[TheManOnTheStreet]

If radical gays have no interest in diluting the concept of marriage, then what is the big deal with calling their union a 'civil union' instead of a 'marriage'?

Marriage was (and is somewhat still) considered a religious ceremony.  To imply that gays have no interest in forcing their sexual deviance upon traditional families is rediculous.  Of course they do.  Traditional families are defined as a man and a woman.  Period.  Thus the word 'traditional'.  The 'marriage' of two men (or two women) goes against the religious definition of marriage.  Demanding that it be called such is, in fact, an assault on the true aspects of the ceremony.  I personally believe that is exactly what they want.

For the record, I use the word 'deviance' because that is what it is.  Sex, BIOLOGICALLY, is defind as a procreational act.  A penis and a vagina..... sperm and an egg.  Dont tell me it is normal.  It is not.  If something goes against nature it is unnatural.  If something (or an act) goes against the biological norm, it is a deviance of that norm. 

Now, all that said, I have no problem with gay individuals being treated just as married couples under the label of a Legal Civil Union.  I don't really care what people do behind closed doors.  They have just as much right to do what they want to sexually as I do.  If two people of the same sex love each other that much to want to be considered a legal union, thus encompasing all the supposed pluses of a 'marriage'... let em.  Just don't call it a marriage.

TMOTS