The Destruction of Straightness

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage exists as a societal institution to provide and promote the optimal environment for child-rearing.

Citation needed.

Everything else you said followed from this, and therefore is suspect.

[Hasbinbad]

that's not why marriage exists

"the optimal environment for child-rearing," says who?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Citation needed.

Everything else you said followed from this, and therefore is suspect.

Not everything. Note very carefully the point near the end concerning the "domino effect" that occurs when you rearrange legal definitions. If you want current research that supports the premise in question I'd direct you to the following:

What is Marriage - This was originally a note in the Harvard Law Review which was later expanded and adapted into a book. The paper is available for download via the SSRN:

Citation: [Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage? (November 23, 2012). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 ]

Pay particularly close attention to footnotes 20 through 28, and footnote 37. You'll find at least 10 peer-reviewed studies or scholarly journal articles within these footnotes which have all been submitted for peer-review. In particular, pay close attention to footnote 21 which will direct you to a very large network of scholarly research backing this assertion.

Finally, marriage has existed long enough to create a presumption of optimality from a policy perspective. Marriage predates all other existing institutions and governments, and such longevity is ostensibly due to its usefulness for the aforementioned reasons. Those proposing the redefinition of traditional marriage actually carry the burden of overcoming this presumption. It is sleight of hand and deceptive issue-framing to think that the existing institution must justify its own existence and that the "new" should be presumptively accepted.

[Daldolma]

so let me get straight

marriage exists because man + woman = baby and married parents are optimal for a given child

except gay marriage would be man + man or woman + woman. these groupings are incapable of producing a child, meaning there are no additional children being brought into less-than-optimal situations

gay couples have the option to adopt children that are certainly NOT optimally situated with married parents. this adoption is presumably an improvement where an optimal outcome is not possible

it's funny, you acknowledge that "choice" is largely irrelevant (which i agree with), but your argument depends upon an assumption of choice. your argument is that gay marriage would promote the rearing of children in non-optimal households, but that only holds water if the alternative is for those children to be reared in optimal households. that's not possible unless you are attempting to push gay people into hetero marriages where they can produce children in an optimal setting.

but if we assume that people in gay relationships will remain gay, they can be integrated into institutionalized marriage and utilized as a sub-optimal improvement for children that would otherwise be raised in a gay single parent household, left unadopted, or raised in the household of a gay, unmarried couple. just as straight marriage promotes an optimal living situation for the third party child, gay marriage would promote a preferable -- if not optimal -- living situation for any child

also this is all based on super sketchy assumptions about optimal settings for raising a child. but if you want us to grant that married mother+father is significantly greater than any alternative, then i think you can grant that married gay parents would be preferable to single parent, foster home, or unmarried gay parents

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not everything. Note very carefully the point near the end concerning the "domino effect" that occurs when you rearrange legal definitions. If you want current research that supports the premise in question I'd direct you to the following:

What is Marriage - This was originally a note in the Harvard Law Review which was later expanded and adapted into a book. The paper is available for download via the SSRN:

Citation: [Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage? (November 23, 2012). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155 ]

Pay particularly close attention to footnotes 20 through 28, and footnote 37. You'll find at least 10 peer-reviewed studies or scholarly journal articles within these footnotes which have all been submitted for peer-review. In particular, pay close attention to footnote 21 which will direct you to a very large network of scholarly research backing this assertion.

Finally, marriage has existed long enough to create a presumption of optimality from a policy perspective. Marriage predates all other existing institutions and governments, and such longevity is ostensibly due to its usefulness for the aforementioned reasons. Those proposing the redefinition of traditional marriage actually carry the burden of overcoming this presumption. It is sleight of hand and deceptive issue-framing to think that the existing institution must justify its own existence and that the "new" should be presumptively accepted.

I'm really happy that a phd candidate wrote a paper that is obviously biased by judeo christian moral ethics and western family culture, but none of what you say actually follows from that, no matter how much jargon in which you attempt to cloak that shaky premise.

Marriage has existed blah blah.... Yeah, in a world where christianity is the law of the land. Let's try something different. That's the point of this conversation. The shit don't work. People are being hurt.

On your point, but more to mine, there are many, MANY more social justifications for domestic partnerships of DIVERSE types than there are to only traditional marriage. I'm not going to go look up the studies, but rest assured they show that the social benefit of having people committed together in the same domicile are more stable than single people, which offers enough of a benefit to society to justify the tax writeoff that they get. Keep in mind, this kind of legislation exists in most states, for this reason, and it's the name of "marriage," in the name of equality, that queers have been fighting for. It is highly disingenuous to suggest that rearing children is the only public purpose of the contractual union of people, whether sexual, romantic, under god, or fiscal.

Thirdly, the entire idea that marriage is the optimal setting for a child is ludicrous. Many cultures accomplish the rearing of children that would never even consider the modern american nuclear family, which, by the fucking way, has only existed as a majority social institution since the 50's? ..what are you fucking kidding me? It takes a village to raise a child is another way to look at it, and that flies in the face of what your phd student buddy says. lals.

[Hasbinbad]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think Hasbin should get his own thread like Harrison.

I think he might actually be Harrison.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that would instantly be the longest thread in all of trolldom

it is ironic, and paradoxically confusing, that you, as a fat man, are more full of yourself than full of food

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

p.s. I don't know why it took me this long to put you on ignore.

[Hasbinbad]

Who are you?

[this user was banned]

This thread sucks; time for more fat women gifs

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[this user was banned]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]