posted
So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws? Or should it only be ignored when you disagree with that opinion?
That doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer on why polygamy can't be recognized under the law.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because I'm the result of a mixed marriage doesn't mean I think it's the best idea. I used to feel kind of victimized about it.
Pooka, you can't possibly be blind to the inconsistency you just expressed.
You felt victimized, presumably by popular bigotry, because your parents were of different races. Now you're supporting laws -- laws -- that express the exact same bigotry you grew up with, only this time targeted against homosexual people instead of interracial marriages. This isn't just schoolyard bullying, this is schoolyard bullying taken to Congress. If you had a miserable time growing up because people were too close-minded to consider the marriage between your Phillipino parent and your white parent (presumably?), why are you so eager to inflict bigotry on yet another class of society?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, common law marriages are very much treated as second class. They are not granted in most states, can be very hard to get recognized, particularly if relatives protest after one spouse is deceased, and are generally frowned upon as living in sin.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also....if we live in a democracy, then whatever prejudice is popular is the one that guides in making laws, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. Only, you can't have both "majority says so, so you're inferior citizens" and guarantee equal rights under the law for every citizen in the same breath. Treat everyone equally, or at least have the spine to be honest about bigotry and rewrite the Constitution to say that everyone but homosexuals are entitled to equal rights under the law. Consistency's all I'm asking for.
quote:So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws? Or should it only be ignored when you disagree with that opinion?
That doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer on why polygamy can't be recognized under the law.
The Constitution, when it guarantees equal rights for all citizens, decides when popular bigotry is unConstitutional. Do you honestly not see the inconsistency in guaranteeing equal rights, then limiting marriage to heterosexual orientations only?
As far as polygamy goes, kid, take it or leave it. It's an entirely different kettle of fish -- while polygamy has its vices and virtues, I won't form an official position on it until I see more polygamous relationships in action. I prefer not to pass judgement on something until I have experience and some degree of understanding of it -- I only wish people in the anti-homosexual camp felt the same way.
Though, of course, "understanding" homosexuality means attempting to determine it as a psychological disorder or genetic disease, to far too many people. Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And gah, I've repeated myself far too often in this thread. I've got things to see and people to do before the night's done, dudes -- this'll probably be my last post of the night. Geoff, I'll address your post tomorrow.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So who decides when the opinion of the majority of citizen can be ignored when it comes to making laws?
Oddly enough, Sachiko, the Republican party was founded on the principle that some things are just wrong no matter how wide support they have. Namely slavery.
Lalo, my dad is chinese and my mother is white. The only people who bullied me were other minorities, which I never understood. But I guess it goes on. Asians have been declared not a minority while gays, who generally are not outwardly identifiable, have been embraced as such. If I were to remain bitter, it would probably be more about that. The powers that seek to protect minorities have shoved Asians out on their own and are now protecting whites who are only minorities in behavior (however it is that they come to be doing it).
But as I said, I decided not to feel a victim about it because I think the sheltering of minorities is anti-empowering. I think gays should understand themselves and look for the advantages in their situation rather than gripe that they aren't just like everyone else. At least if I want to treat them just like me. Isn't it enough to have the intellectual heritage of every great thinker of Western Civilization being gay? What, no one remembers that movement?
posted
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if one can come up with a satisfactory legal way to address it, polygamy is fine. Polygame has a bad rep for a reason that still often applies -- its regularly used (in the US) by a man to control women's lives from an early age. This is not inherent in polygamy, however, and it should be fought whereever it occurs. The legal problems with polygamy are huge, however. Parental rights to children, death benefits, et cetera all become hugely complicated when more than two bodies are involved (sort of like in quantum physics, to use "Hobbesian" analogy).
As far as when what the majority wants gets ignored, I think you'll find that the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. What the majority wants on a specific issue gets ignored when the legally elected or appointed by elected officials officials whom the public elected to make such decisions make them in a way that is upheld under the law by other such officials. Its really quite simple, and I'm not certain why people have a hard time understanding it. This country has never been founded on the idea of majority rule in all things. It was founded on the idea of majority rule in determining who gets to make the rules and how, not on what those rules were except in the most general sense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, before I go -- Pooka, for once, I more or less agree with you.
If there are any immigrants to the US I'm more proud of than Mexicans, it's the various Asian ethnicities. I pass through Koreatown and Little Tokyo fairly often, and it's stunning how well these people do when they arrive with nothing. I love Mexican immigrants, and they deserve twice every hard-working-cliche they've earned thus far, but I've never seen ethnicities as focused on success and service as the Asian immigrants. I can't be more impressed.
Asians don't get affirmative action because they're the farthest thing from under-represented in colleges as they can be. They're a fraction of the population, but can make up to half of any given college's population -- I think UC Berkeley's Asian student population weighs in the late forties percent or so. Like I said, I've never seen more successful immigrants as a group, excepting possibly the Jewish population as a whole, nor more hardworking. Little Tokyo's earned my respect.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as I said, I decided not to feel a victim about it because I think the sheltering of minorities is anti-empowering. I think gays should understand themselves and look for the advantages in their situation rather than gripe that they aren't just like everyone else. At least if I want to treat them just like me. Isn't it enough to have the intellectual heritage of every great thinker of Western Civilization being gay? What, no one remembers that movement?
Oh yeah, go ahead and edit your post so I no longer agree with you.
Pooka, maybe you're not getting it. Homosexuals aren't asking for special rights or sheltering. They're asking for equality. Equal rights. The same as you or I -- nothing more, nothing less. Is it so difficult to understand?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yup, this is the anti-homosexuality camp. Funny, I HAVE had personal experiences with gay families (that is, gay partnerships and their children) and those experience weren't positive, least of all for the kids. But when I mentioned this experience someone snarked at me for using "anecdotal evidence". Can't win for losing.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas I can produce references to, what was it, 23(?) peer reviewed sociological studies that say otherwise. Note that (at the time a study of these studies was published, only a couple of years ago iirc) these were all the sociological studies done on the subject. Yep, every single sociological study (with certain standard restrictions: they had to be peer reviewed, they had to have subjects, that sort of thing) done on the subject found that children raised by homosexuals were every bit as well adjusted as those not.
That is why I don't consider your experience particularly meaningful on the subject. Furthermore, could you clarify in what ways it was bad for the children? And how this was more bad than the normal problems routinely experienced by children of heterosexuals (questions of identity, problems with authority, that sort of thing)?
edit to clarify what I mean by particularly meaningful: your evidence is anecdotal; I know a couple of children raised by gay parents (different families) and both are well adjusted, therefore homosexual couples should be allowed to raise children -- that's just as much useless BS as your experience, despite the fact that its true. Personal experience is an excellent foundation for forming stupid prejudices, and is all too often the enemy of rational choice. There were many enslaved black people who never met a white person that didn't think himself a superior human being; does this mean that all whites nowadays are highly racist people? Nonsense: context matters. Under what circumstances did you meet these people? Do you also meet similarly badly off heterosexual families in similar circumstances? Et cetera.
quote:Taalcon wrote: Yes, but if you're referring to the people pictured in this thread - they're celebrating in the immediate aftermath of the victory. Well, we can get married now, so quick, lets do it before they law gets changed.
Um, Taalcon, it isn't legal for same sex couples to get married right now in the state of California. The mayor just decided to rewrite the marriage forms so that the forms were/are gender neutral. In effect, he has indirectly contradicted state law, without doing anything illegal.
The recent spat of gay marriages are illegal, yet allowed by the forms and no one is enforcing the law. So it is a kind of protest.
quote:Pooka wrote: Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is very pivotal to the ethics of this. But it is in their interest never to have that question answered so they can be offended by everything anyone says as they choose.
I would totally disagree with this. Maybe you can explain this point to me. This is merely about two people who love each other wanting to get married. Maybe they want to get married for certain rights like wills, kids, DNR orders, etc. Maybe they just want to get married so it's seen as a legitimate union and they don't feel as ashamed anymore. Maybe it's more about commitment. They want to get married for the same reasons that hetrosexual couples want to get married.
It's not about morality, because it is legal for same sex couples to be together. Sodomy is not illegal. Same sex couples can legally adopt children. If society had deemed homosexuality immoral, then it would be illegal to commit homosexual acts. But instead, the law has legally recognized homosexuality and some homosexual rights (right not to be harassed, right not to be fired for being homosexual, etc.), as well. The law simply has not recognized the marriage of homosexuals. Yet. It does not say homosexuals can't get married. It has just redefined marriage, so that the marriage of homosexuals is not included.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, just because you're a gay man doesn't mean you can't marry a woman. Same with women. they have the right to marry a guy. They HAVE a right to marriage. They just think Marriage should be something different than it is. They're rights aren't being held back, it's their idea of what they SHOULD BE.
So can homosexuals marry? Sure. They just can't marry a member of their same gender, because that's not what marriage IS.
That's like saying I want to eat the sound a flute makes. That just isn't possible, no matter how much you want to. You'd have to change the definition of 'eat' to mean 'ingesting all forms of sensory perception' in order to allow someone to Eat a sound.
So gays aren't fighting for the right to Marry. They're fighting for the right to change the definition of what marriage is. That's an important distinction to make.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JNSB -- the mayor's position is that homosexual marriage is protected by the state(? maybe federal) constitution, and as such any law against it is invalid.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage can also committing your life to the one you love in a partnership. It just so happens that people give a definitive answer that in order to have a marriage, you can't marry out of love if you love someone of the same sex. That's inequality.
Like anti-interracial marriage laws. A black man has a right to marriage, but only if he chooses to exercise that right with a black woman.
Separate but equal is not equal at all.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon -- no, that's what you say marriage is. I say marriage is a commitment between two loving people, and between them and society. Is the heterosexual nature how its been historically used? Sure, but in america for a long time it was also historically used as only taking place between couples of the same race. Historical definition is not the same as what is essential to something. I'm pretty confident that what's essential is the love, the bond, and the commitment, not the genders of the participants.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issues that concerned them where the usual issues children of divorced parents work through, in addition to issues over their parent's new sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
I don't think it would have been very nice of me to have told them, "But 23 peer-reviewed sociological studies all say you're just fine!"
I imagine that the things that bothered they may or may not qualify as sexual abuse per se ; if they do, then you'd probably just rebut that hetero parents abuse their kids the same way.
A lot of the problems one of the friends had was with their parents being very, very open about public affection and sex with their partner; I mean open to the point of "toys" left out in more public areas of the house, or walking in on them repeatedly in various areas of the house.
Not to mention just plain missing having a dad around, and feeling like she wasn't supposed to like him. I think that's common to children of divorce, but it seemed to have more impact on her because of her's mother's attitude towards men after becoming a lesbian.
I'm just pointing out that I DO have personal experience on the subject. Although I suppose, now, the complaint is that I haven't had enough personal experience, or experience of the quality of sociologists conducting a study.
I wonder why I even bother posting an opinion at all, sometimes. First I'm prejudiced because I lack real experience; now I'm prejudiced because I lack proper experience. So, if I read scientific studies, suddenly I'll be enlightened?
I think that, no matter what my personal experiences or bases for personal opinion, someone will call it BS simply because I don't agree with them.
posted
Personal observation isn't a high enough statistical sampling to validate a generalization over an entire population of people.
And of COURSE you wouldn't tell someone that "23 sociological studies say you're fine!"
That's cruel, insensitive and invalidating a person's real emotions.
However. That person's experience cannot be generalized over an entire population. I had a bad childhood with abusive parents who stayed married, engaged in PDA and left out sexual toys. Do I generalize over the entire population of married, heterosexual parents that it is sociologically bad for children who come from a home with married, heterosexual parents?
posted
Just wondering, and I'm not even pressing forth my own opinion on the matter, but does everyone think women should be required to register for the draft just the same as men are?
posted
No, the studies say that children of homosexual people are no worse off on average than children of heterosexual people, not that those children are fine. Don't sneer at science because you aren't willing to understand what a statistical generalization is.
Also, you're talking about children who are finding out that a parent is homosexual at a particularly traumatic time in their lives. It doesn't even remotely speak to a child raised in a loving atmosphere by an openly gay couple.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I call it BS because it is BS. Notice that I also called BS me saying that homosexual couples are all fine at raising kids because all the children raised by homosexuals that I knew were so. Please read what I write.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I gave one example of problems one of my friends struggled with.
Not all my friends struggled with the same thing.
But when they all struggle, and all struggle significantly more than the friends I had who were dealing with hetero divorced and remarried parents, what am I supposed to think? If that has been the extent of my personal experience?
I pay attention to what studies say, too. But when what I've personally seen contradicts what studies have proven, what should I think?
Am I obligated to keep telling myself that if Columbia University doesn't agree with my findings, then obviously I'm wrong, even if what I've seen contradicts the findings more often than not?
Talk about dogmatic.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world will never be filled with perfect couples. Children who are harmed by homosexual parents are just as badly off as children harmed by heterosexual parents. However, if the rate of harm in both populations is equal, no more children are being harmed than if those couples were heterosexual, and it is absurd to deny homosexuals the right to raise children under the criteria that "well, heterosexuals harm children at the same rate your type of person does, but since you're homosexual you don't get to raise any".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And hobbes just said in the other thread that "Marriage is a sacred bond between two people."
Please don't hold one person's words to mean what an entire opposition camp believes. Otherwise, Lalo has completely destroyed a lot of his own camps.
quote:JNSB -- the mayor's position is that homosexual marriage is protected by the state(? maybe federal) constitution, and as such any law against it is invalid.
I agree, fugu. Yet the interpretation of the constitution can be taken many ways. What the law literally and explicitly says and recognizes is something else. The same sex marriages aren't legally marriages since marriage is so strictly defined. I can say the constitution gives me the right to expose myself in public, but that doesn't mean it's legal to do so (public decency laws). (No, I'm not saying same sex marriages are immoral like exposing yourself - I should find a better analogy but the pace of the thread won't allow me to)
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time I had ever posted about what I'd seen, I wan't sneering at science. I was mentioning that what I'd personally seen didn't agree with the conclusions drawn by the sociologists.
And I certianly didn't intend to have my personal experiences be a replacement for in-depth studies.
I was just mentioning what I'd seen as food for thought, as a discussion topic, etc., etc.
I wasn't aware that simply mentioning different findings would be considered "sneering at science". You seem awfully protective of those studies.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on your account it was my impression that the child had been born to a couple who had since split due to one member being homosexual -- that certainly sounds like the more general type of situation you described.
Its not just that all these studies found that, its that no study (at that time) found anything but. Can you point to one, much less, say, three studies that suggest children raised by homosexual parents are less well adjusted?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the basic fact that a majority of California voter passed Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman?
I don't care whether it's just or unjust, but right now it's the law.
When you want to change the law, you do so through proper legislative channels. You don't start willfully disobeying state law and performing acts out of your jurisdiction until the courts change their minds.
Do we live in a democracy or not? Did the people of California vote against this or not?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware I had ever even mentioned denying homosexual couples the right to raise children.
My intention in my post was to mention that it isn't always easy for the children of homosexual couples to deal with the additional issues present by being raised by a homosexual couple.
Nothing more. I also wasn't attacking the sanctity of scientific studies.
Again, I was just mentioning that my personal experiences have been to the contrary.
I don't undestand why that makes you so upset.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, Sachiko, what is the purpose of the anecdoctal data? To say that we should offer them more support? That they should take special classes in raising their children and dealing with emotional problems?
That they shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Or nothing at all? That it's simply a curiosity, a story to share?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those make me smile. How can anyone want to deny them that happiness?
I haven't heard anyone claim they want that - unless, of course, you think the only way two people can love eachother is if the government officially labels them "married."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I wanted to attack science, I would ask why a legitimate opinion requires a scientific study as a basis.
Maybe it's heretical of me, but "a study has been done about it, and it said this" seems to be our generation's version of "well, the village priest said THIS, and that's how we'll think".
What is the point of a study like that? If, say, the children of homosexual couples were found to have greater problems or suffer higher incidence of abuse, would you consider that a reason to take away their right to raise their own biological children?
Heck, studies show that more child abuse happens in areas of lower socioeconomic status, right? That doesn't mean we automatically revoke parenthood for poor Mexicans.
Or, if a study showed that Christians are generally happier and more well-adjusted than atheists, would you pressure families to convert?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if a study shows that having homosexual parents screws you up the same as heterosexual parents, do we just take aways kids from ALL parents?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, read mack's post about civil disobedience on Hobbes' thread on this matter. It's really great and might answer your question about why these people should do this. I agree that it is against California state law right now.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Suneun. A curiousity. Statistically insignificant, though, so not worth thinking about.
*sigh*
My point is, even based on MY negative experiences, I wouldn't revoke the rights of gay parents, even if I had the power, even if it were possible.
For one thing, based on my BS experiences, I did think that not having those gay parents at ALL would have been worse for my friends, despite the difficulties they had with their parents' orientation. A parent you're uncomfortable with is better than no parent at all, or an unfamiliar foster parent.
I think some of youse are being slaves to scientific studies.
I think studies are a good yardstick but they can't and shouldn't be the only basis for the formation of opinion and ethics.
posted
Oh I certainly don't intend to dismiss your experience, Sachiko. I just wanted to make sure you weren't using it to draft policy.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what the discomfort is. If that parent makes you uncomfortable because of verbal, emotional, physical or sexual abuse, you're better off with a foster parent.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I certainly too that to mean you were, well, anti-homosexuality. As for why I'm getting upset about it, I'm upset with you making snarky comments which clearly misrepresent what I'm saying, such as:
quote:I don't think it would have been very nice of me to have told them, "But 23 peer-reviewed sociological studies all say you're just fine!"
and
quote:I think that, no matter what my personal experiences or bases for personal opinion, someone will call it BS simply because I don't agree with them.
despite, in particular, my explicit contradiction of that second statement -- its not because you disagree, its because personal experience isn't scientific at all. There have been several studies done in the not so distant past, for instance, which find two things: that nurses generally agree runs of babies occur more often at full moons, and that no such runs happen. Pre ingrained superstition led them to notice more when the runs happened at the full moon.
And yes, if you're ignoring scientific studies which are relevant to the matter in formulating your opinion, your opinion doesn't particularly matter. As I've said before, I can make an excellent argument for just about anything. Its all a matter of the premises.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then, fugu, what is your response to my friends' negative experiences?
There were at least 5 of them, out of the 8 kids in that particular situation that were in that class in school. For my experience, that's a fairly high number; in fact, the majority, right?
So when those studies are mentioned, I think that the majority of kids I knew in that situation didn't like that situation, and that, relative to the very large number of families studied, maybe that groupings like those I saw aren't so rare and constitue a small but significant minority.
And if they don't, if the studies show that every child in every gay family is dong fine, then at least my experience is an interesting anomoly.
Goodness me. I really thought I could just mention it, and that it might be of some interest to those who care very much about sociologists' findings on the subject.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eight people is still not statistically significant.
The experience for each of those people is valid for them, but it cannot be generalized over an entire population.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a random question, no real weight in any direction, far as I can tell. Are there any studies that say whether there is a higher or lower incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexual couples?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of the effects on children who have same-sex parents, they are indistinguishable from their peers who have heterosexual parents. Another finding was that divorce has a more damaging effect on children than does having gay parents. (Gomes, 2003). To determine if children of same-sex parents had a higher incidence of being homosexual, Carlos Ball and Janice Farrell Pea surveyed a series of studies from 1978 to 1996 and found that “the percentage of children of gays and lesbians who were identified as gay or lesbian ranged from zero to nine.” (Gomes, 2003). Another study done by Carole Jenny determined that 94 percent of molested girls and 86 percent of molested boys were abused by men. Of those, 74 percent were abused by an adult male in a heterosexual relationship with the mother. However, these statistics are not taken into account in custody battles where a father is seeking the physical custody of the child. (Gomes, 2003).
posted
Geoff: The studies I linked to a while ago (no, I removed the article, I thought we were done talking about this!) (i can find it again) checked that. In fact, Mackillian's essay in the Cousin Hobbes thread addresses it.
From my remembering, there was no statistically different percent of children identifying has gay compared to the population. However, daughters felt more open to "experimenting" with the idea of being attracted to women*.
* This could be due to any number of reasons, which weren't answered. Maybe daughters of straight parents would lie more about not doing that sort of thing. Maybe daughters of lesbian parents would lie more about trying it. Maybe daughters of gay parents find it more acceptable to consider homosexuality before rejecting it. Who knows.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
What, no one remembers that movement?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
