So I guess children who's mother flees an abusive husband and are later raised by a loving step-father are worse off. By your definition, it would have been closer to some dipshit ideal of child raising for the mother stay with the abusive husband? If you agree that the loving step-father is closer to the ideal in this situation, you no longer have an argument. If you disagree, you're being worse than Jack in a political discussion.
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the stay banning same-sex marriage in California will remain in place until August 18, 2010 at 5 p.m. at which time Proposition 8 should no longer be enforced. The federal judge had found Proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, unconstitutional last week, but imposed a temporary stay barring same-sex marriages. He wrote in the ruling: "Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner." "The good news is the stay is lifted, the bad news is the judge is lifting it next Wednesday," said Molly McKay, a spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA. http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/judge-same-sex-marriages/
Well, that was unnecessary. It wasn't very well phrased to say: "So falling short of attaining an ideal means society should be constitutionally prohibited from continuing to pursue that ideal?" This was the ideal to which you referred: "I think children are better off being raised by their biological parents." Allowing gay marriage certainly doesn't constitutionally prohibit ANYONE from attempting to persuade biological parents to marry and raise their own children. Exceptions to that already exist. The presence of married, childless straight couples doesn't suddenly prohibit anyone from pushing for married couples to raise their own children.
Your reading comprehension isn't even second rate. I didn't say anyone was trying to eliminate the ideal family. That's a straw man.
Attaining an ideal implies identifying it first. Social efforts in the form of subsidies attach to the activities identified. If instead of that the courts step in and prevent society from identifying what activities are in fact being supported, the social effort is, I assume you will agree, altered. If altered, is it also subverted? I think so.
I'm sorry, this all seems like meaningless justification to me. I'm still unsure how gay couples are any different in that regard from childless couples. If we grant certain subsidies or tax deductions to childless couples and acknowledge that they're an exception to the ideal, why don't gays become that same type of exception? If your argument is that we don't want them raising children, then why do we allow them to raise children outside of marriage now?
that isn't either what he said or a natural progression of his argument, so your attempt to find flaw in his position didn't do so accurately.
How else can this be read, other than "allowing gays to do something, means straights are prohibited from doing the same"?
No, you're wrong. He specifically said 'biological parents' several times, implying that anything else does not meet this ideal he is making up. This implies, in no uncertain terms, that his ideal would prefer bad biological parent(s) over: - loving single parent - loving straight couple - loving gay couple He also is implying that childless couples do not meet his ideal for marriage. It's all there in black and white. There's a reason why he didn't reply to my post.
no, because he said it was the ideal scenario, not that it created the perfect environment all the time. your attempt to dispute it with something nobody denies occurs doesn't address what he was talking about since it is already assumed by the argument. yes, in cases where one of the parents is a POS a step-parent can create a better environment. how does that challenge the ideal that two biological parents, when neither are POS and love their child, creates the ideal situation for a child? it doesn't. the fact that adopted children in many cases strive for a relationship with their biological parents reveals in inherent desire to have a relationship, love and acceptance with biological parents. that is just the simplest example I can provide but it can be projected onto children in all scenarios and an innate desire they have for their own biological parents. you are ignoring the very concept of what an "ideal" is to dispute it with a specific scenario nobody denies exists.
No, you are amending his definition of ideal. I know what ideal is, it's not his definition. You are actually qualifying my argument by altering his definition. By his definition, single parents, adoptive parents (straight or gay), and childless couples (straight or gay) do not fit his ideal vision of marriage. He is trying to exclude only the gays from his definition, but he painted himself into a corner. If the biological parents suck, the child would be better of with any of the other options I listed. There is no denying that.
there is also no denying that when you pit your best case scenario versus his worst case scenario, you are utilizing a logical fallacy, thus it is an illogical argument. I didn't qualify his concept of an ideal at all. how about you address the equal scenario that a child is better off with his biological parents when both love him against your scenario of a child with step or adoptive parents that love him. I addressed that when I showed how adopted children, even with loving adopted parents, still strive for their birth parents, thus there must be some inherent dynamic that benefits a child with that relationship. tat is what he is talking about.
I have to agree with this. If the "ideal" is man+woman being married and producing children, and we already have numerous examples showing that society will disregard that ideal (single parents, adoption, etc), then how is it that only SSM will "constitutionally prohibit" this ideal? Makes no sense. Also, if the goal is to give a child the best chance of success (i.e. productive life through adulthood) during upbringing, and we ALREADY allow *single* gay adoptions, how could it be MORE damaging to allow gays to *marry* and adopt? Wouldn't a child be better served with a loving, two-person household?
I agree with what you are saying for the most part, but I don't think you really get what he is talking about though. To paraphrase, his vision of an ideal marriage is the coupling of a man and a woman with the intention of having and raising their biological children. That is where this all started. I agree absolutely that the best case scenario is for a child to be raised their biological parents, assuming they are good parents, but that's not the point of the debate. He is saying that if a man and a woman do not procreate and raise their biological children, it is not an ideal marriage. He is saying that the love between two people is not good enough to be an ideal marriage. Who is he to tell me that my, and other other childless marriages, are not ideal?
Which is all well and good... if we are talking about adoption and/or raising children. But we aren't. That is where his entire argument falls apart. He's arguing against gay adoption while we are talking about gay marriage.
What I'm saying though is that you shouldn't be addressing that at all. Big Blockhead is muddying the argument by talking about raising children, but the reality is that children have absolutely ZERO relevance to the situation of two members of the same sex getting married. His argument would be suited to argue against gay adoption, sure, but scenarios involving raising children have no place in this discussion because allowing or disallowing gay marriage doesn't change the fact that gay couples can adopt children anyway.
I am in favor of gay marriage as it has no effect on my life (besides having some gay/lesbian friends) If I couldn't watch Jets games anymore or eat pizza anymore or have straight sex anymore if gays could marry than I might object.
