Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

[Ultima Ratio]

Are some of you really advocating we base our laws on sentiment and whims, even moral relativism -- unprincipled laws and in application? That's tryanny.

 

I don't even know what making laws based on reality (the world as we find it today) would mean if that's the sole criterium. The reality is that not all people pay there taxes, therefore there should be no law requiring people to pay taxes?

 

Murder exists. So what? What follows from that reality? Nothing. The principle of life is used in law to legislate the moral norm that murder is wrong.

[TheLeviathan]

I'll help you with an example.

 

Your purpose: to keep marriage to "traditional" only

My purpose: (in honor of the site) To qualify baseball as the only "true sport"

 

1. In order for fans to enjoy themselves most completely they must follow a "true" sport. A true sport being only that which fosters the complete challenging of the athletes who participate by having them challenged in the following ways:

2. Challenged by using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball

3. Challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent

4. Include running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, scooping

5. Challenged in that they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more

6. Must be played with less than 10 players on either team, on the field, at any given time to maximize athlete importance.

7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only "true sport" by which fans enjoy themselves most completely.

 

Now you perhaps may highlight some small part of this and say "nuh uh...this sports does too!" In which case I'd just amend my argument to wedge that one out too.

 

When you get to nitpick your premises and hide them in circularity, it's easy to make any argument SEEM necessary and "principled" - but it's really just a mess of convenient BS you've strung together in fancy language to mask the flaws.

[Ultima Ratio]

Here's one: your marriage and parental responsibilities are not weakened, or strengthened, based on whether or not two other people get married.

 

SSM won't create more gay people. It won't result in more heterosexual marriage divorce, or less.

 

Everything in your post supposes all the above. Stronger heterosexual marriages would be a good thing for this nation. Work on that, rather than working on preventing SSM. One will actually do some good.

 

I don't have to suppose any of that actually, and don't (with regard to the argument above).

 

In one case, society has an interest and not in the other. I do in fact think there is utility to laws beyond the laws themselves (not all laws), so I'm not making any claim to whether homosexual "marriage" would cheapen or deteriorate the institution of marriage. My argument above doesn't touch this. Though I do think that when society sends the message that you can get form two moms whatever you could have gotten from a mom and dad, yes... there are real consequences of this attitude becoming a norm... I'm not arguing that it will happen, but there is concern that the shaking bonds of heterosexual marriage be further loosened.

[Ultima Ratio]

I'll help you with an example.

 

 

1. In order for fans to enjoy themselves most completely they must follow a "true" sport. A true sport being only that which fosters the complete challenging of the athletes who participate by having them challenged in the following ways:

2. Challenged by using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball

3. Challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent

4. Include running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, scooping

5. Challenged in that they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more

6. Must be played with less than 10 players on either team, on the field, at any given time to maximize athlete importance.

7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only "true sport" by which fans enjoy themselves most completely.

 

 

Thanks for the help.

 

1. False

 

Done.

 

Argument is valid but not sound.

 

THAT IS IF THIS WERE AN ARGUMENT AT ALL.

 

It's not. And you continue to reveal how little you know about logic.

 

When you put an argument into standard form (meaning no longer in paragraphs, but point by point with a series of premises leading to a conclusion) each premise must be written as a statement such that it can be true or false.

 

None of 2-6 of your 'argument' is a statement that can be either true or false and therefore cannot be evaluated, therefore it's not an argument. It is an explanation of sorts. You didn't look this distinction up I see. Sorry to be so flippant, but I really tire of the poor quality of rebuttals, and all the more annoyed that out of the gate I've been called either directly or indirectly on these threads: pretentious, unconscionable, bigoted, homophobe and that only scratches the surface -- all the while I do have an expertise at this. That doesn't in and of itself make me right, but when people hopelessly can't understand and not even try to understand something that might help them in other arguments (maybe even one's we'll agree on), and act as though they were above these arguments, adjudicating from above with derisive comments to follow, it is insufferable. Horribly so.

 

Diatribe over, but I won't be commenting much further because this has eroded into mush (the responses I get anyway, save Chief maybe), but will show you why mine IS an argument. And the proper way to contest someone's argument is to show why one of the premises is false.

 

1. In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.

2. A - the birth and rearing of children

3. A - the bonding between men and children

4. A - a healthy masculine identity

5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.

6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.

7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.

8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.

9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).

10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

 

Every premise is written as to be either true or false.

 

If you think a premise is false, say why. It's just that simple folks.

[Ultima Ratio]

Thanks for the help.

 

 

 

1. In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.

2. A - the birth and rearing of children

3. A - the bonding between men and children

4. A - a healthy masculine identity

5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.

6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.

7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.

8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.

9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).

10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

 

 

I'll critique my own argument just to show how it's done.

 

#3 read: In order for a culture to survive and thrive, it must foster the bonding between men and children.

 

This seems to be true at first glance, but have tradition gender roles been such that the brunt of parenting was on the mother already, so the need for any significant amount of bonding is largely mitigated if the mother is around? Might it also be good for society that men not bond with their boys that the young boys adopt from their mother a more effeminate persona, that may result in less violence?

 

Something like that would work and be civil...

[TheLeviathan]

Something like that would work and be civil...

 

You mean like I did earlier when I called your premises dubious and you hid behind the definition you claim had been unchanged since before the dawn of time?

 

We've already been there! You were the one that decided that wasn't a fair place to play. Now you want back? I called out your notion about male bonding with children and with transforming young adults sexually.

 

Both of which you didn't respond to. So, this is already happening, you just only choose to engage certain issues and keep going back to the same refrains to duck ones where you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

[TheLeviathan]

Thanks for the help.

 

This is, of course, my fault. In the efforts to expedite things I hoped you'd see the forest for the trees. After letting Alan Keyes speak for you for three pages, I should've known better.

 

1. Fans only enjoy themselves at a true sport defined as that which challenges athletes.

2. Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball

3. Athletes are only challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent

4. Athletes are only challenged when they must do running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, and scooping during play of the game

5. Athletes are only challenged if they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more

6. Athletes are only challenged if they have less than 9 teammates actively playing with them.

7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only sport qualified to be a "true sport". Therefore fans only enjoy themselves watching baseball.

 

Now, of course these premises can be challenged. But I've been challenging your premises for four pages and you keep running behind the "principle" of your definition. Which is circular. Shall I quote you earlier about your unwillingness to accept the premises of your argument could be challenged? (This was, of course, while Alan Keyes was still doing your talking for you and no such premises had been listed in particular. But I look back now and was pretty damn close!)

 

I'm still waiting to hear how some of those premises are rectified with your earlier claims about the definition's consistency since pre-recordded time. And, of course, that empirical evidence you claimed.

[Willihammer]

I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly boys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.

[drjim]

I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly b

oys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.

 

This will hardly be the first generation without a strong male presence nor the first children of gay couples. I guarantee on balance children of gay couples will be better off than single parents.

[Ultima Ratio]

This is, of course, my fault. In the efforts to expedite things I hoped you'd see the forest for the trees. After letting Alan Keyes speak for you for three pages, I should've known better.

 

1. Fans only enjoy themselves at a true sport defined as that which challenges athletes.

2. Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball

3. Athletes are only challenged to score more points (within the context of the game) than their opponent

4. Athletes are only challenged when they must do running, throwing, swinging, jumping, diving, sliding, jogging, trotting, and scooping during play of the game

5. Athletes are only challenged if they may be hit by the object played with at speeds of 90 mph or more

6. Athletes are only challenged if they have less than 9 teammates actively playing with them.

7. Baseball is the only sport that meets all of conditions 2-6 and therefore is the only sport qualified to be a "true sport". Therefore fans only enjoy themselves watching baseball.

 

Now, of course these premises can be challenged. But I've been challenging your premises for four pages and you keep running behind the "principle" of your definition. Which is circular. Shall I quote you earlier about your unwillingness to accept the premises of your argument could be challenged? (This was, of course, while Alan Keyes was still doing your talking for you and no such premises had been listed in particular. But I look back now and was pretty damn close!)

 

I'm still waiting to hear how some of those premises are rectified with your earlier claims about the definition's consistency since pre-recordded time. And, of course, that empirical evidence you claimed.

 

The way you've written every premise is awkward and false.

 

Take #2:

 

True or false: Athletes are only challenged using a wooden or metal stick to hit a round ball.

 

This is false, athletes are challenged in football as well.

 

Every premise is false.

 

Why do you get so hung up on unimportant things, like marriage pre-dates religion, which it does. You keep bringing this ancillary item up because you think you've got something, but not really sure what.

 

At least in western civilization, of which we are a part, the institution of marriage as one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of society and western civilization for over 4000. And while there may have been factions that supported other kinds of marriages and experimented with the institution much in the same way we are experimenting with it today, it was so negligible as to not mention. This is not controversial, and the argument doesn't rely on it. But here's the thing, not everything I've written to date has been nor needs to be directly of use in the particular argument I posted. There are many arguments why marriage should be left alone -- pointed out that it has been around a real long time and no one was offended with it until 10 years ago is a pretty good reason, to me at least, that we ought not hastily overthrow the oldest institution in western civilization. I hope this is clear so you stop.

 

The other thing you keep saying, again as if you've got me, is that I originally stated marriage was about procreation. Yes, I did. And the argument I posted in standard form, this is essential. I'm still arguing and supporting this notion.

 

What is it still with the phrase "in principle' that you don't understand? I've used in the same way the Keyes was using it, and was the reason why I posted the video. If you don't understand it now, I can't help you.

[PseudoSABR]

I'm of the conviction that kids, particularly boys, need a strong male presence in their upbringing. And there are plenty of studies out there to support this. So I'll be eagerly watching as humanity's first crops of children born to energetic gays and lesbians make their way in life.

Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...

[TheLeviathan]

The way you've written every premise is awkward and false.

 

Well, yeah. Baseball is swell, but that's not my point. The point was to show I can form a similar argument and then argue that the "principle" of the definition was accurate. My argument has as much "principle" to the definition as yours does. Your premises are more believable, but nonetheless dubious. So you have dubious premises - that's where the discussion is. This "principle" conversation is circular ridiculousness - can it be done now?

 

Why do you get so hung up on unimportant things, like marriage pre-dates religion, which it does. You keep bringing this ancillary item up because you think you've got something, but not really sure what.

 

When did I say it predates religion? It predates males having a strong parental role and it damn sure predates developing teenagers into sexual adults.

 

At least in western civilization

 

You forgot that premise apparently? Just as a very basic problem, western civilization hasn't even existed for anything close to 4000 years. We can just start there and the problems only get worse. As I said - dubious.

 

The other thing you keep saying, again as if you've got me, is that I originally stated marriage was about procreation. Yes, I did. And the argument I posted in standard form, this is essential. I'm still arguing and supporting this notion.

 

The "gotcha" is that you continue to use that definition and appeal to it even though your premises are very dubious that the definition rests on. So you keep resting on the definition to prove the definition. (circularity for the win!!!!!) I'll repeat it again - your argument of the "principle" of your definition is only good insofar the premises are.

 

So, if you're ready to get back to where I was 4 pages ago before you detoured us - your premises are dubious.

 

Also - still waiting on that empirical evidence. I'd honestly like to see it. If you have the smoking gun of homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting success, don't keep the world waiting man!

[Ultima Ratio]

Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...

 

Since Homosexual marriage is very new, and adoptions to homosexuals even newer, there is not a great deal of research yet. What is plentiful is the research on the importance of having a mother and a father. So by inference....

[TheLeviathan]

Since Homosexual marriage is very new, and adoptions to homosexuals even newer, there is not a great deal of research yet. What is plentiful is the research on the importance of having a mother and a father. So by inference....

 

Oh...the inference that two people is better than none or one? Well yeah.

 

As for comparisons to two adults that are both women or men, no such inference can be made. I honestly don't believe the data exists to even compare man/woman parenting vs. man/man or woman/woman. Yet I've been recently told such empirical evidence exists. Please, quit holding out.

[Ultima Ratio]

So you keep resting on the definition to prove the definition.

 

Marriage is between and man and woman, therefore marriage is between a man and woman.

 

You keep saying that I'm doing this, but clearing I haven't

 

I'll repeat it again - your argument of the "principle" of your definition is only good insofar the premises are.

 

I have no idea what this means so surely it adds to the confusion.

 

If you are saying that the reason I support leaving marriage alone as one man one women is because of the reasons I've given (the premises), then yes. That's generally how arguments work.

 

Forget the word "principle" if it's so troublesome.

 

I have nothing left to add. Clearly no minds have changed and you only care about ancillary minutiae at this point. You either accept my argument or you don't. I could give plenty others, but why waste my time - and yours.

 

I just wanted to let those who read but don't post (because of our conservative nature), that we are out here. We are not bigots or homophobes and anyone who says so deserves to be challenged and ridiculed.

[Ultima Ratio]

Oh...the inference that two people is better than none or one? Well yeah.

 

As for comparisons to two adults that are both women or men, no such inference can be made. I honestly don't believe the data exists to even compare man/woman parenting vs. man/man or woman/woman. Yet I've been recently told such empirical evidence exists. Please, quit holding out.[/QUOTE]

You must not read well. I included a modicum of evidence several pages ago, but here you go, I'm sure you'll read it all tonight in the spirit of education yourself -- that is why you insist on producing it, right?

Single Parent Statistics

 

1. Births to unmarried women constituted 36 percent of all births in 2004, reaching a record high of nearly 1.5 million births. Over half of births to women in their early twenties and nearly 30 percent of births to women ages 25-29 were to unmarried women"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov
   
2. Along with the number of births to unmarried women, the birth rate for unmarried women rose in 2004. The 2004 rate of 46 births per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15-44 matches the historic high reported a decade earlier, in 1994"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov
   
3. Between 1980 and 1994, the birth rate for unmarried women ages 15-44 increased from 29 to 46 per 1,000. Between 1995 and 2003, the rate has fluctuated little, ranging from 43 to 45 per1,000"America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, 2006" www.childstats.gov
   
4. In 1995, nearly six of 10 children living with mothers only were near the poverty line. About 45 percent of children raised by divorced mothers and 69 percent by never-married mothers lived in or near poverty, which was $13,003 for a family of three in 1998.Census Brief CENBR/97-1, Bureau of the Census www.census.gov, September 1997.
   
5. 75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.(Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
   
6. More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children.(Children's Defense Fund)
   
7. 63% of suicides are individuals from single parent families(FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Investigative Aid)
   
8. 75% of teenage pregnancies are adolescents from single parent homes(Children in need: Investment Strategies...Committee for Economic Development)
   

 

 

 

1. 
   

 

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  

 

• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  

 

• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  

 

• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  

 

• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
  

Father Factor in Education - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
  

 

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
  

 

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
  

 

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
  

 

• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.
  

Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse - Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  

 

• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
  

 

 

 

Do you require more? Would it make a difference for you? No. On to the next marginal point to belabor confusedly.

[Willihammer]

This will hardly be the first generation without a strong male presence nor the first children of gay couples. I guarantee on balance children of gay couples will be better off than single parents.

I would hope any couple, SSM or hetero, would fare better than your average single mom just by virtue of having 2 incomes. What I am more concerned with is how kids of gay parents fare compared to kids of hetero parents. There is not the same robustness of data and social science.

 

I don't have any religious or moral arguments against gay marriage but I would like to hear just one proponent admit that what we are doing here as a society by bestowing the legal benefits of marriage on gays and further encouraging them to form families is, we're valuing gay rights over social science and putting a new generation of gay-family kids in a certain degree of risk.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you require more? Would it make a difference for you? No. On to the next marginal point to belabor confusedly.

 

Yes, irrelevant evidence to the conversation leaves me wanting more relevant evidence. Guilty as charged. Got any of that relevant stuff buried somewhere?

[TheLeviathan]

You keep saying that I'm doing this, but clearing I haven't

 

You're correct, you aren't doing it explicitly. You're just wrapping it in jargon. Now, maybe you lost your own circularity in the jargon, many brilliant minds have done that. I'm just hoping now that it's out there, you please stop doing it.

 

If you are saying that the reason I support leaving marriage alone as one man one women is because of the reasons I've given (the premises), then yes. That's generally how arguments work.

 

So when I addressed the premises, why did you immediately change the subject back to your definition? Again, I was ready four pages ago. The strength or weakness of your argument rests on premises yet you did everything you could for several posts to avoid that discussion.

 

For instance, I don't deny that in the future we find out that gay marriage/gay parenting is very harmful to children. That is a possibility. In which case I would promptly oppose gay marriage. But we have no relevant data to suggest this is true. Not by inference or anything else. There simply is no data to compare. All we have to compare to right now is single or no-parent situations. The far stronger inference is that a two parent household (regardless of gender) is likely stronger than a one or no-parent situation. So I defer to the real benefit now of that being the likely case, but I don't deny it potentially turning out to be false down the line.

 

And while you have tried the "woe is me" card a few times, no one has criticized you as a bigot. You're being criticized for fallacious arguments and a tendency to resist defending your premises. I've done so in a multitude of civil ways - any snark or biting comments are out of frustration for your unwillingness to engage them in favor of circular arguments, fallacies, or most recently - irrelevant data or by resisting posting your own thoughts and leaving nothing but a rambling mess to speak for you.

[Willihammer]

Let's say the social science comes back in a few years and says "of the 3 groups - children of single moms, children of gay parents, and children of hetero parents, the gay-family kids average score ranks in the middle on every metric."

 

Then what?

[TheLeviathan]

we're valuing gay rights over social science and putting a new generation of gay-family kids in a certain degree of risk.

 

I can agree to the second part. I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage. But yes, there is a degree of risk they'll be worse parents than single or no-parent households. I just don't think that risk is particularly high. If they are worse than a hetero parent household, that would make for a difficult future discussion for me in continuing to advocate SSM. But again, I think that risk is extremely low.

 

To answer your very interesting second question, for me it would depends on which of the two ends they are closer to. If it's statistically in the middle, I'd find that acceptable because many kids who would be in the homosexual household would have had only a single parent or less.

[Ultima Ratio]

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the bonding between men and women.

2. A - the birth and rearing of children

3. A - the bonding between men and children

4. A - a healthy masculine identity

5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.

6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.

7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.

8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.

9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish all of 1-5

10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

 

 

For the last time, point out the circularity or stop.

[Willihammer]

If it's statistically in the middle, I'd find that acceptable because many kids who would be in the homosexual household would have had only a single parent or less.

Or they would not have existed at all.

[TheLeviathan]

Or they would not have existed at all.

 

Correct, but I don't rule out the possibility that they are so god-awful that no parents would be better. I just find it extremely low.

[Ultima Ratio]

Levi said: "I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage."

 

So we ought to experiment with marriage and childrearing that we can study it?

 

"We've got to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." - N. Pelosi

 

Couldn't resist.

[Hornhead]

Show me such studies that indicate same-sex couples raise less well-adjusted children. Because that's the conclusion you're drawing from such studies...

Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

[Ultima Ratio]

Discussion is pointless as compassion and equality will trump any study results. I can’t imagine the slightest possibility in 30 years that a policy would exist giving preference to hetero over same-sex couples because studies show kids are not as well-adjusted when they don’t have a father and mother. Such results would simply be rejected or ignored because they do not comport with political correctness, assuming that morally void dragon still roams free.

 

Bingo

[TheLeviathan]

For the last time' date=' point out the circularity or stop.[/color']

 

That argument has dubious premises. Your definition is built on these premises. So, when I attack your premises, you don't get to cite the definition. You've yet to engage on any of the attempts I've made to undermine your premises. Such as the following litany of errors:

 

1. Men and women don't need to bond to procreate. Hell, at this point they don't even have to be in the same country. A sperm bank and a few procedures and you're good to go. No bonding necessary.

3. You've stated this argument has existed since "time immemorial" and yet, male bonding in the child rearing process is a recent development. They didn't even train their children in future trades for many centuries before now much less parent. And this is saying nothing for your dubious notions of the definition being static and unchanging and your insistence on only using Western Culture. (Which, not incidentally, has not existed for anywhere close to 4000 years)

4. Why not have two men parent rather than a man/woman?

5. Most women were sold off the second they "flowered" - transformations of adolescents is probably more rare then male bonding. We sold off women at 13, so how that part of your definition has existed since "time immemorial" is more than a bit dubious.

6. A polygamous relationship accomplishes all of these things. One could argue with reproductive rates it causes far more survival odds. Gay marriage offers all of these things save the "birth" aspect. Especially since the rejection of premise 1 is very much true.

 

And that's not even including your laughable claim that marriage law dictates obligations to progeny!

 

Now, provided you don't go back to appealing to any "principle" of the definition - we have no circularity! Huzzah....discussion of premises! This is so much easier when you A) actually lay them out and stop appealing to your own definition when your premise crumbles.

[TheLeviathan]

Levi said: "I don't think you can have social science on this matter without first taking the step to gay marriage.

 

Well...it's not. We can't compare what we don't have information on. But since most children adopted and raised in gay households would have poor parenting (here is where your stats do apply), it's a worthy gamble. Worst case: these kids continue to have no parent and change to having two bad parents. Best case: LOTS of kids have good parents.

 

Gamble = worth it.

[Willihammer]

Correct, but I don't rule out the possibility that they are so god-awful that no parents would be better. I just find it extremely low.

 

Care to put a wager on that? I'll give 2:1 odds that kids of lesbians turn out to be even fatter than kids of heteros, and also worse at math. A whole new generation of David Sedaris walk-reading bookworms coming our way, I recon. Can't wait!