Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Who Didn't See This Coming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I've debated this topic enough and cited Supreme Court decisions from the first 200 years of this country enough to know that the prevailing argument in favor of licensing marriage was that marriage was between a man and woman to foster the best environment for a child to be born and raised. As stated in Ditson v. Ditson and quoted in Maynard v. Hill:

    "marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness, though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and as to these uncontrollable by any contract which they can make. When formed, this relation is no more a contract than `fatherhood' or `sonship' is a contract."
    That quote doesn't appear to provide any support for the point you just made.

    And from a dissenting opinion on Bostic v. Schaefer, we see that procreation is what the SCOTUS has recognized:
    You realize "dissenting opinion" means that the majority of the judges did not agree with the statements right?

    And even today in Deboer v. Snyder:
    A case that is currently in the process of being overturned by the Supreme Court, and which disagrees with about ~50 other cases in the past 2 years.

    So in summary, your support for your notion that "the prevailing argument [from the first 200 years of this country] in favor of licensing marriage was that marriage was between a man and woman to foster the best environment for a child to be born and raised" is based on two statements made by judges who the rest of the judicial system have said are wrong...?

    And most have resoundingly concluded that the optimal environment to birth and raise a child is when the mother and father remain together.
    If you mean children do better when raised by two parents rather than one, then yes. (And if extended family also live in the home, the children tend to do even better) If you mean that birth parents do better than adoptive parents, then no, adoptive parents do better on average.

    This area of social science is in its infancy, so claiming that "gender and/or sexuality of the parents is not a relevant factor in childhood outcomes and produces no difference is improper of the scientific institutions.
    "Hundreds of studies over the past 30 years have elucidated the factors that are associated with healthy adjustment among children and adolescents" (APA's court submission).

    Social science is not 'in it's infancy'. We don't need to wait for more studies: We have plenty of evidence - same sex parents do just as well, usually better*, as opposite sex parents.

    * Because they are often adoptive parents, and adoptive parents do better.

    “…it would be foolish for anyone with truly antifeminist sensibilities to become a sociologist,” due to how liberal that field has become.
    I have a bit of an issue with the conflation of "liberal" and "feminist": I am about as liberal as it is possible to be on most issues, and I in no way take feminism seriously and simply ignore and skip over anything feminist.

    Homosexuals simply can not reproduce together, and therefore, there is no reason for the state to take an interest in assuring that a conducive environment exists for them to take such responsibility.
    Hundreds of thousands of gay couples in the US are currently raising children together. Whether they have obtained the children through adoption, past heterosexual relationships, surrogacy, or in the near future by scientifically enabled biological means... the fact is that they are currently raising children in large numbers. If marriage strengthens relationships and improves child-rearing, then the state has an obligation to those children to allow the parents raising them to marry.

    Which is odd, considering "marriage" is not listed in your statement above. Let me recite what you said:
    You'll find it under "an affectionate, loving, and committed relationship between the parents". Commitment in marriage improves the quality of the relationship and strengthens commitment.

    So, are you saying that one NEEDS a piece of paper from the government in order to have an "affectionate, loving, and committed relationship"?
    Are you for real arguing that marriage doesn't strengthen commitment in relationships...? Seriously?

    Which flies in the face of the ASA brief you positively cited earlier:

    Social science studies also confirm that children of same-sex parents are just as psychologically healthy as children of different-sex parents. According to a nationally representative study, adolescents raised by
    same-sex and different-sex parents report similar levels of self-esteem and depression.


    So, are there similar psychological effects or are they different?
    Good spotting. Yes, currently children raised by same-sex parents do as well as, or better than, children raised by different sex parents. A significant factor in this is presumed to be that adoption leads to better outcomes on average.

    However, there is good reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage would mean the children being raised by same-sex couples would do even better, because marriage is known to be helpful at strengthening relationships. Marriage is well-known to boost mental health in straight couples and strengthen relationships, and preliminary studies on same-sex marriages have shown exactly the same type of effects.

    Same sex couples on average appear to have happier relationships than straight couples. This is hardly surprising, as research on heterosexual couples has consistently shown that a greater amount of similarity between the partners results in a better relationship on average (having more in common leads to greater empathy and thus better resolution of disputes as each person can understand better 'where the other person is coming from'). If the quality of the relationship among same-sex couples is better on average than opposite-sex couples, then children being raised by them ought to do better on average because children do better when the quality of the parental relationship is better.

    So although children raised by same-sex couples are currently doing the same or better than children raised by heterosexual couples, they would do even better still if same-sex marriage was allowed. Married, same-sex, adoptive parents, represent a particularly ideal environment for raising children from the point of view of best outcomes for the children, and would significantly outperform standard biological parents on average.

    For most of the history of this country, the government only cared about marriage because of the issue of providing the optimal environment for child birth and rearing.
    That's not true, but I guess you should be glad it isn't, because otherwise the government would be limiting marriage to financially well-off, educated, same-sex couples, of Asian descent, who adopt children, because that's what the research shows lead to optimal outcomes for children.
    Last edited by Starlight; 03-11-2015, 04:53 PM.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Hmm... I've read studies about what people worldwide think about what constitutes "wellbeing" in general, and it's not the things you list.
      According to the book description, Gallup polls say that most people, all over the world, focus on the five areas of "Career Wellbeing, Social Wellbeing, Financial Wellbeing, Physical Wellbeing, Community Wellbeing".
      I would say that list is shallow and low-minded. If true, then most people are unphilosophical. Most people haven't learned the lessons taught by Jesus or Plato. What about mental wellbeing? Or what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul? If I were forced to choose between "godliness, wisdom, and virtue" on the one hand and "career/social/financial/physical/community wellbeing" on the other, I ought to choose the former. I would want the same for my children, and I want them to grow up to be the kind of person who would choose the former.

      I think that one of the studies on same-sex parenting might have included measures of moral character in the study, but I can't remember which one. Those sort of things are pretty hard to measure, and typically most studies prefer to stick to more objectively measurable things.
      That has the risk of creating the pretense of knowledge, as Friedrich Hayek discussed in his famous Nobel Prize lecture:

      "And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.

      "...[They] thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant."
      http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...k-lecture.html

      I suspect that any sort of morality analysis you tried to do would simply show you that LGBT people tend to be less religious than average because the church has been nasty to them and forced them out, so you would want to compare children raised by LGBT people to children raised by atheists to be sure you were comparing apples with apples.
      But haven't atheists been insisting that atheists are just as moral as Christians (at least statistically)?
      But there's no harm in making the comparison you suggest here.

      I assume you are speculating that there might be some kind of 'damage to the morality of the children' by being raised by 'parents in an immoral relationship' or somesuch... which I find quite hilarious.
      No, I'm not making any such speculation.
      I was just questioning whether the studies being used to prove your case do, in fact include all (or what may be the most important) relevant factors. Or whether you have only the pretense of knowledge.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        If true, then most people are unphilosophical.

        The vast majority of people are not sufficiently philosophical for my liking.

        What about mental wellbeing?
        If we're talking mental illness than that probably falls under the category of general physical health that was labelled "physical wellbeing". If we're talking happiness / meaning / life-satisfaction then the whole point of that study was to identify what it is that causes people to be happy and have high life satisfaction, and they found the answer was positive career/social/financial/physical/community wellbeing.

        Or what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?
        If you mean that in a religious sense, then I guess it depends on your precise religious beliefs. Do you then want social scientists to be investigating to see which parenting styles result in greatest amounts of "belief in Jesus" / "belief in Allah" / "membership of the Catholic church" / "baptism" / "a personal relationship with Jesus" or whatever all the various people personally think causes the salvation of the soul...?

        If I were forced to choose between "godliness, wisdom, and virtue" on the one hand and "career/social/financial/physical/community wellbeing" on the other, I ought to choose the former. I would want the same for my children, and I want them to grow up to be the kind of person who would choose the former.
        'Godliness' strikes me as a very vague term - there are a lot of ways to be 'godly', many of which I would definitely not want for my children - eg being a religious terrorist. If what you're meaning to contrast here are positive internal character traits of the individual as compared to external 'success' at life in terms of career and finances etc, then sure, I guess I can agree, although I imagine it would be pretty hard to reach much agreement on what makes for a 'better person'. You and I might not be able to reach much agreement ourselves, never-mind getting everyone else to agree.

        That has the risk of creating the pretense of knowledge, as Friedrich Hayek discussed in his famous Nobel Prize lecture:

        "And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.

        "...[They] thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant."
        http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...k-lecture.html
        That's, of course, something that's generally worth bearing in mind. Although it's also worth bearing in mind that he's thinking primarily about the field of Economics, which is rather more dubious in quality compared to any other academic field. Calling it a 'pretense' of knowledge is ridiculous though - it's still knowledge, it just might not be relevant knowledge.

        I was just questioning whether the studies being used to prove your case do, in fact include all (or what may be the most important) relevant factors. Or whether you have only the pretense of knowledge.
        I have only the pretense of knowledge. Really I know nothing at all.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          ...
          I'll get to the rest tomorrow, but I wanted to provide the following citations for you since you questioned my claim:


          Atherton v. Atherton states quite clearly "A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law."

          Singer v. Hara concluded "The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race"

          Skinner v. Oklahoma says "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Loving v. Virginia cites this ruling for the same purpose.

          Standhardt v. Superior Court "The State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associated with marriage.”

          Baker v. Nelson says "...in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex"

          Andersen v. King County stated "Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race"
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #65
            The government has always let an 80-year old man marry an 80-year old woman, and it gives them all the same rights and benefits as any other married couple. Clearly procreation is impossible in such cases, so the government's interest in such marriages is clearly not solely a procreative one.

            I agree that the raising of children is one of many reasons the State is interested in marriage. Since same-sex couples regularly raise children together, the government ought to be interested in their marriages and supporting their families.

            I'm not quite sure what you think citing a selective series of bad judicial decisions is going to accomplish. In no way do I believe that you are citing a random selection of "what various US courts have actually said about marriage". You're instead scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for dubious and silly outliers that say what you wish to hear, and so selecting your evidence to support your pre-adopted conclusion.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #66
              Sure just make it legal and tax the crap out of it to pay for the latest and greatest spending program
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                The government has always let an 80-year old man marry an 80-year old woman, and it gives them all the same rights and benefits as any other married couple.
                Determining infertility is a medical discovery, and part of privacy protections of HIPPA. The state has no authority to force you to divulge personal medical information when applying for a marriage license. So, these exceptions are unknown to the state, and thus are insufficient to invalidate the link between procreation and opposite sex marriage. But, notice, I never said procreation was a condition of marriage. I said it was encouraged by the state WITHIN a marriage bond.


                Clearly procreation is impossible in such cases, so the government's interest in such marriages is clearly not solely a procreative one.
                I bet the infertile wouldn't be asked about any previous cancers, whether they had received the HPV vaccination, or if he had lost a testicle in the war either. Those are private medical matters, and are not allowed to be asked, just like fertility. For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use. Again, that's a private matter covered by privacy laws that make asking them about such things illegal

                I agree that the raising of children is one of many reasons the State is interested in marriage. Since same-sex couples regularly raise children together, the government ought to be interested in their marriages and supporting their families.
                No they shouldn't. They should be interested in the welfare of the child, but not extend that to the wants and desires of those who are categorically incapable of reproduction.

                I'm not quite sure what you think citing a selective series of bad judicial decisions is going to accomplish.
                It's called evidence to back up a claim. And they are only "bad" in YOUR opinion. In mine, they are correct and good and the Appellate Courts were bad for ignoring them as doing so is contrary to proper judicial procedure. Precedent was clear. Activist judges changed precedent.

                In no way do I believe that you are citing a random selection of "what various US courts have actually said about marriage".
                And frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn what you believe or don't believe. It isn't a "random selection". It is a list of quotes from decisions I have read and written papers on in college.

                You're instead scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for dubious and silly outliers that say what you wish to hear, and so selecting your evidence to support your pre-adopted conclusion.
                Don't quit your day job at the Planet Fitness, cubbie. You'd make a terrible carnival mind reader.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  If we're talking mental illness than that probably falls under the category of general physical health that was labelled "physical wellbeing"....
                  Not just that. I'm including a person's character, e.g., integrity, fortitude, temperance, justice, having a clean conscience, rationality.

                  If what you're meaning to contrast here are positive internal character traits of the individual as compared to external 'success' at life in terms of career and finances etc, then sure, I guess I can agree, although I imagine it would be pretty hard to reach much agreement on what makes for a 'better person'. You and I might not be able to reach much agreement ourselves, never-mind getting everyone else to agree.
                  I think broad agreement is possible. It's not just what you would call religious. The Greek and Roman philosophers were able to identify four 'cardinal virtues'. I'm not as familiar with eastern philosophy but it seems there is a broad overlap there too, and they too seemed to hold up wellbeing of the mind/soul as being the greatest importance. Of the people interviewed by the Gallup polls, and the majority who unreflectively held things like money and popularity to be the most important things, I think would, upon being asked to consider it more carefully, be likely to admit that the wellbeing of one's soul is more important.

                  That's, of course, something that's generally worth bearing in mind. Although it's also worth bearing in mind that he's thinking primarily about the field of Economics, which is rather more dubious in quality compared to any other academic field.
                  The particular kind of methodology Hayek was critiquing is certainly dubious. But I do not agree that the field of economics is more dubious than other social sciences. The field of economics has provided many important insights that we can know with great certainty.

                  Calling it a 'pretense' of knowledge is ridiculous though - it's still knowledge, it just might not be relevant knowledge.
                  The reason it is a "pretense of knowledge" is that one assumes/claims they know everything about something just because they know the things about it that can be measured. In the lecture he talks about how in the social sciences there is essential complexity that creates limits to our knowledge, yet there is a tendency to mistakenly assume that careful measurement of the measurable aspects gives us a comprehensive knowledge, transcending the inherent limits to knowledge. There is the tendency to a pretense that it gives us a greater knowledge than it actually does.

                  It seemed to be an example of this when I saw you saying that because of extensive research on the matter, we now know what causes/harms child wellbeing. But if the research only considers certain, measurable factors, and likely doesn't include the most important factors (which may be difficult or impossible to measure), then it is a pretense of knowledge to suppose that we know what causes/harms child wellbeing.

                  And, as Hayek said there, "To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm."

                  A couple other nice quotes from the lecture:
                  "I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false."

                  "in these fields not only are there only absolute obstacles to the prediction of specific events, but...to act as if we possessed scientific knowledge enabling us to transcend them may itself become a serious obstacle to the advance of the human intellect.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    They should be interested in the welfare of the child, but not extend that to the wants and desires of those who are categorically incapable of reproduction.
                    So if scientific means made same-sex couples capable of reproduction you would support marriage for them?

                    You've already mentioned scientific means as a possibility for others who might otherwise be incapable of reproduction "For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use", so you apparently have nothing against scientifically-enabled reproduction.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      So if scientific means made same-sex couples capable of reproduction you would support marriage for them?
                      No. I find that sort of think ethically repulsive. There is no telling what abominations will come out of this medical process.

                      You've already mentioned scientific means as a possibility for others who might otherwise be incapable of reproduction "For all we know, they could have been intimate for decades, and had their embryos frozen for later use", so you apparently have nothing against scientifically-enabled reproduction.
                      The frozen embryo would have come from a normal fertilization processes, not gene manipulation or nucleus transplants. Scientifically assisted reproduction is not the same as scientifically caused reproduction.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Joel View Post
                        Not just that. I'm including a person's character, e.g., integrity, fortitude, temperance, justice, having a clean conscience, rationality.

                        I think broad agreement is possible. It's not just what you would call religious. The Greek and Roman philosophers were able to identify four 'cardinal virtues'. I'm not as familiar with eastern philosophy but it seems there is a broad overlap there too, and they too seemed to hold up wellbeing of the mind/soul as being the greatest importance. Of the people interviewed by the Gallup polls, and the majority who unreflectively held things like money and popularity to be the most important things, I think would, upon being asked to consider it more carefully, be likely to admit that the wellbeing of one's soul is more important.
                        Okay, fair enough, and I loosely agree with you on this. I've read some research on this topic in the past and cross-cultural research shows there are about 26 virtues that tend to recur among different cultures on a fairly regular basis.

                        There are various people researching the ways in which we can promote the development of such virtues within our lives. Because research suggests that having such character traits leads to greater happiness, less mental illness, fewer behavioral problems etc.

                        But, tying this back to parenting... sure it might be interesting to do a study that measures the development of such virtues in the lives of children, and to a certain extent such studies are already done (self-control has been directly measured, for example), and any studies that measures the children's happiness levels / mental illness rates / behavioral problems is are indirectly measuring character development. And the thought that the gender of the parents would affect the development of integrity or justice or self-control in the children I find to be pretty hilarious.

                        But I do not agree that the field of economics is more dubious than other social sciences. The field of economics has provided many important insights that we can know with great certainty.
                        Er... can you name 1 or 2 for me because none are leaping to my mind?

                        The reason it is a "pretense of knowledge" is that one assumes/claims they know everything about something just because they know the things about it that can be measured. In the lecture he talks about how in the social sciences there is essential complexity that creates limits to our knowledge, yet there is a tendency to mistakenly assume that careful measurement of the measurable aspects gives us a comprehensive knowledge, transcending the inherent limits to knowledge. There is the tendency to a pretense that it gives us a greater knowledge than it actually does.
                        Well at risk of criticizing the field of economics yet again, that king of thinking and reasoning has long been a problem in economics - eg GDP was conveniently easy to measure so economists used it, despite the fact that everyone was very well aware that it wasn't exactly measuring very meaningful things. I'm wary of Hayek projecting the flaws of his own field onto other fields.

                        But if the research only considers certain, measurable factors, and likely doesn't include the most important factors (which may be difficult or impossible to measure), then it is a pretense of knowledge to suppose that we know what causes/harms child wellbeing.
                        Well, I guess if you want to focus on something unmeasurable - eg whether the soul of the child goes to hell in the afterlife or not, then yeah, current scientific research can't really tell us anything about that and it that sense we don't 'know' anything about child wellbeing. All we can say is that we know a lot about outcomes for children in the here and now.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                        16 responses
                        103 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post One Bad Pig  
                        Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                        53 responses
                        301 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                        25 responses
                        109 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                        33 responses
                        196 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Roy
                        by Roy
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                        84 responses
                        357 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Working...
                        X