Comment

Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 20, 2010 at 11:19am

Leslie,
I'm glad you're posting this to spme gay websites. I don't want to just preach to the choir. When I first posted this last year, it resulted in me being the guest on on a gay radio talk show where I had one of the most interesting discussions I've ever had. A first - with a reasonable liberal. He was also gay - but he listened to my views and I listened to his. I think we both went away with a greater understanding of the other's position.
Nancy

Comment by Jim Robinson on June 20, 2010 at 10:10am

Mike - certain people here lost their end of the debate a long time ago when they resorted to name calling, open hostilities, ad hominem attacks, circular arguments, proof by example, and invalid analogies. Just shrug it off and let it go, my friend - their intolerances are glaring to everyone but them. At least you tried to reach out to them and maintain a civil discourse (even when they made it clear they are only here to divide and not heal Conservatism).

Comment by Mike Mott on June 20, 2010 at 8:41am

Lee,
#1 -- On what basis am I denied my right to take an Uzi, AK-47 or hand grenade into the local restaurant? I'm not hurting anyone (your standard for gay marriages) when I do it? You choose to avoid this question because it is inconvenient.
#2 -- Slavery is STILL the norm (it exists in many parts of the world) if you bother to look OR it is not the norm, depending upon how norm is defined. That statement is not universal for America at the Founding. It is also irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. You confuse the essence (person is a slave or inferior by virtue of their attributes) with the actions (marriage between people of the same sex) of a class (loosely) of people. Actions versus attributes is not a tight analogy.
#3 -- You say "Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine". I point out that this is not accurate on the basis of current fact (it is also inaccurate based upon historic fact, but I'm too lazy to drag out the references). Then you change to religion driving law. Driving law not the same thing as separate from law, which is it? The fact is that in the Declaration our rights -- rights that are protected by the government and the courts -- are derived from a Creator. That doesn't sound separate to me. I suppose it depends upon what the meaning of the word separate is.
#4 -- Actually, the courts aren't saying that they can't do it. Society is. The courts are trying to over rule society in this regards. But that's beside the point. You still haven't made any type of a compelling argument that society should allow gays to marry. In fact your argument seems to be it is a right (it is not as is easily demonstrated) because you say so and therefore, because you've said it, that the gays should be allowed to marry. That is a circular argument. Thus far your logic has failed on ad hominen, proof by example, invalid analogy, and circular arguments.

You are not doing very well in terms of advancing a cogent argument. I make it a habit to avoid talking with nitwits -- so ...

Comment by Nancy Morgan on June 20, 2010 at 4:00am

"The point I am making is that you obviously believe that gay people are foolish or being gay is a vice or that Gay Pride Month is some sort of nonsense"

Leslie,
That's not what I believe at all. The point of the article is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." And Please quit putting your words in my mouth!

Comment by Jim Robinson on June 19, 2010 at 5:08pm

Traditional marriage has always been about one thing and one thing alone - the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony before the Divine and recognized by the State. I will not shirk from stating the obvious when over five thousand years of recorded history has verified and exemplified traditional marriage to be the normative behavior for a moral and civil society. This fact is indisputable to any impartial student of history.

In simpler terms for the sake of an unnamed few here that love to resort to personal attacks and then retreat from their attacks (and I will not respond in like fashion), traditional marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm for 6,000 years of human history - so why the sudden rush over the past few modern decades by a radical subculture to wholesale change, alter, and redefine a basic concept of marriage that has served humanity so well over six millennium? That is the question that begs to be answered in an intelligent and civil manner (a question that Mike has asked in variant forms but has not been answered in this never ending circular debate).

I will state the obvious and ask a question that begs to be answered by the critics of traditional marriage. When the greater part of humanity has recognized and accepted traditional marriage between one man and one woman to be the norm for civilized society, why exactly do we need to redefine traditional marriage just to appease a hostile and aberrant subculture? Civil unions are not equal to marriage, and I see no evidence to even remotely suggest that they are. Maybe someone will try to answer my question in a civil and intelligent manner without resorting to needless round-house debates or hostile personal attacks.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 19, 2010 at 4:58pm

Lee,

You say "the burden of proof is on opponents to gay adoption/marriage/homosexuality in general" To prove what?

Your reference John Locke's negative liberty and I've already explained the potential harm. By the way potential harm is enough of a standard or otherwise it would be legal for me to carry an Uzi into the local Pizza Hut.

Lee says "Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine, why should a religious position have any bearing on that civil process?" They aren't necessarily separate -- for instance "So help me God" is the oath witnesses generally take with their hands of a Bible. More importantly this statement belies the historic record and the actions of the Founders, who may have known a thing or two about the Constitution. The TRUE problem with this statement is that the rights that government, including the courts, protect come from a Creator and not from government. That would seem to be an important distinction.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 19, 2010 at 4:46pm

CJ,
You have asked the $64 question. CJ says "The moral and ethical standards of our society has deteriorated measurably in our lifetime, would you agree? My dilemma is, "if gay parenting is detrimental to a child's mental and spiritual growth, how can we determine traditional marriage to be a more positive influence on our children, when it is our fathers children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who are responsibility for this moral and ethical decline?" How can we pass judgment as to who would be more effective considering the overall failure of the traditional family environment to maintain these standards? "

Where to start? I don't think it is fair to say that the traditional family marriages have failed. There is a general society shift away from them, but (going out on a limb here) I think all studies suggest that a traditional family that is functional and stays in tact send children into society who are the most prepared to succeed. By this I mean they get the higher paying jobs, the also tend to have successful families, and they are less likely to be incarcerated. The children of these families are successful by most measures.

We also know that children of single mother households have a much more difficult time. They are more likely to drop out of school. Are more likely to be chronically unemployed. Are more likely to be incarcerated.

I think it is fair to say that whatever policies we have that they should promote family arrangements that provide the greatest chance for children to succeed. When we do the crime rate is reduced, the economy is healthier and there is less demand for social services.

Then I would suggest that we take a first do no harm approach to changing the policies. If, as has been the case for 30 years or so, families have deteriorated, crime has increased (it did decline for a time but is rising again), and there is greater demand for social services then that implies we ought to look at our policies and see if government actions are contributing to these issues.

To the issue at hand. It has been argued as a matter of fairness and equality gays should be able to marry. There is study data suggesting that gay couples are less stable than traditional couples. I'm sure that we can find others that contradict them. The point is that we don't know and therefore with the other problems that it would seem to me that we are creating some risk of using government coercion to further harm the fabric of society. It is a risk, but it may not be so. However, if we adopt a first do no harm policy then it would seem to me that we should look at this carefully before implementing a policy that may do harm.

Then it has been suggested that this is like civil rights or slavery. I reject this as slavery was debated during the Founding. Some states had it and some did not. Gay marriage was not debated so their standing is different from the beginning. Minority couples can also function just like majority couples. Gay couples do not function the same as heterosexual couples. I mentioned procreation earlier and Lee blew it off. But the facts are a heterosexual couple can create their own children and a same sex couple can't. This statement refers to inside the marriage. I get it that sometimes heterosexual couples are unable to procreate and need some help -- that however is the exception and doesn't prove the rule. So there is a difference in kind between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. The civil rights issue is a totally different one as well.

Slavery was a violation of the natural rights of man, which the Founders felt that it was the duty of government to protect. The main violation was liberty, but the liberty they lost by being property rather than people was different than the one homosexuals "lose" because they can't marry. So this argument really isn't very strong.

How do we pass judgment? The only way to tell if a thing is better, or not, is to measure it. That requires studies and that requires time.

Comment by CJ Wyandotte DPS on June 19, 2010 at 12:47pm

Hi Mike, fascinating debate, worthy of the Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society. I would hope that you, Leslie and Lee can ignore those who wish to turn this into a donnybrook and maintain this at an academic level rather than an emotional reaction.

For the record, I oppose genderless marriage and I am ambivalent towards same sex unions. Having said that, I respect Lee and Leslie's position and will defend their right to express it. Closing the door on issues we disagree with will never allow us to understand those differences and how to resolve them. Unfortunately, the hatred, anger and bias by many is a barrier to positive dialogue and in my opinion is more instrumental to this Nation's decline then anything they oppose.

The subject of the debate at this moment seems to be, "what effect a same sex relationship has on children in these relationships. I agree with you, it is difficult to surmise without further study. This leads me to my own moral dilemma on this issue.
The moral and ethical standards of our society has deteriorated measurably in our lifetime, would you agree? My dilemma is, "if gay parenting is detrimental to a child's mental and spiritual growth, how can we determine traditional marriage to be a more positive influence on our children, when it is our fathers children, grandchildren and great grandchildren who are responsibility for this moral and ethical decline?" How can we pass judgment as to who would be more effective considering the overall failure of the traditional family environment to maintain these standards?

Comment by Mike Mott on June 19, 2010 at 8:37am

Dave,
I concur with your point and to it I would add that the evolution of society is a Darwinian process: societies with the best norms will be the most successful societies. America has been a remarkably successful society with its mores, liberty, and free markets. Other societies have not been so successful. I wrote a long missive on this, but the bottom line is that changing a policy so fundamental as this should be done very carefully with a full understanding of the implications before doing so. To do otherwise is a risk to society, because the policies we've adopted are the reason that our society is successful.

Comment by Mike Mott on June 19, 2010 at 8:26am

Not so. For a variety of technical reasons it can take years to reach valid conclusions with these types of statistical studies. That doesn't mean that valid conclusions can't be reached, it just means it takes a long time and it is difficult. Establishing the association between smoking and lung cancer is an instance of using this type of study to reach a conclusion. Does smoking always cause lung cancer? Nope. Some people smoke their entire lives and never develop lung cancer. Does that disprove the hypothesis? Nope. That is a fallacy of proof by example, which has been common in this discussion.

These type of studies look at a variable (smoking in the studies mentioned above) and its impact (lung cancer) on the people who engage in it. Those in the study population are divided into to groups, not randomly, but whether or not the variable applies to them. Because the selection to a population is not random there are a number of statistical challenges that are created. For instance, in the smoking studies we may find that some participants were exposed to asbestos, which also is associated with lung cancer. This is a confounding variable and its effect must be removed from the populations. Over a number of years the confounding variables are identified and their effects are removed from a study.

Notice in the last exchange with Lee I referenced a study -- a cohort control study of the type I just outlined above -- to rebut her claim that my statement was absolutist. Her response was to change the subject. She resorted to trying to demean my argument with an assertion, and when I pointed out her assertion was invalid she then changed the subject. Clever, yes. Good argumentation, no.

Then we have the point, well I avoid studies because ... That means she advocates creating policies without a sufficient understand of their impact on society. Because, one supposes, Lee feels that her policy is right then that's the policy that we should follow. Knowing that gay parents was a relatively new issue I figured that any studies would show that there was no difference. The first study she referenced would be like the early studies with cigarettes. Some of them could have made the same claim that Lee's first reference makes "Studies using convenience .... ." That is a statement universally true for these types of studies. It goes on "Research suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes ...", which is again true. I don't have any trouble with any of this, but from a policy perspective it doesn't prove her point.

What we do know, and what is acknowledged by her study, is that given two populations of families one stable with good family relations and one not that the children from the stable family, on average, do better than the other population. It is in society's interest, as I said, to adopt policies that promote the raising of families in a stable environment. So far all of the data and conclusions are in agreement.

The 2nd study Lee cites is a tricky one. "These studies find no no significant differences between children of ... ." This statement can be true and NOT GOOD for society. It is now settled science (far more settled than global warming) that the children of single mothers do less well in school, do less well in careers, and are more likely to be incarcerated that children of married mothers in stable homes. By saying the children of a lesbian single mother do no worse than a heterosexual mother you've not proven this is a relationship you want. What you are arguing for is that it is OK to cheapen society and produce children who are going to be a problem and drain on resources.

The point is that one needs to understand what is being studies and then one needs to be able to draw policy conclusions from the data. Lee by admission "I say, Why bother ..." doesn't do this and doesn't reason about the policy implications of that which she advocates. She merely assumes that she is correct.

The data I see, which includes the references provided by Lee, all observe that the children of stable families perform better in society than do those from single mothers. The studies for other types of family arrangements, for reasons mentioned above, haven't reached a level of maturity from which to draw conclusions. Study data also suggests (I don't think it is conclusive yet) that gay couples are less stable and have more violence in the home than do heterosexual couples. As the study Lee mentioned grants me that stable families are key for producing healthy productive members of society this is a matter of policy concern for society.

What to do? It doesn't seem wise to me to adopt a policy that may well result in harm to children. Can we prove that? Not yet, but the data is very suggestive of it. The country hasn't allowed homoexuals to marry since its founding over 200 years ago, so what's the rush? Why not take the time to understand the policy implications of the decision and then make it, because if it is made wrongly it will be a disaster for everyone.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page