Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 299
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    It would be hubris on a congressional scale to pretend that anyone knows what that is, much less that it is significantly better or worse than any other.
    Well, I intended in my post to bheuss to demonstrate that homosexual relationships typical don't show at least the outward signs of long-term commitment. In fact, in countries where same sex civil unions have been legal for a decade or more, only 5% of homosexuals entered into one.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    My understanding is that adoption agencies always try to do that, however, with limited success. I am not ready to concede that the marital status or the gender of the prospective parents are reliable, or even very useful criteria for reaching such a judgement. However, in a society in which traditional marriage is under stress and single-parent households on the increase, we had better be ready to take a little risk. The last thing we need is laws that try to foster one kind of household by prohibiting all others.
    But would you be opposed to prohibiting a certain type of household if the evidence suggested that type of household has a higher rate of relationship failure?

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    [I recently lost a dear friend. He and his partner had lived together for more than forty years. They were committed when such commitments were much less likely and much more difficult than they are today. However, their commitment to each other lasted in part because their families were committed to it. (Their nieces and nephews thought "uncle" was always used in the plural. They thought that "gay uncle" was one word and they knew it long before they knew what it implied.)]
    As I mentioned before, I can't argue with personal experiences. But, as with my own experiences, they are anecdotal and should not be the basis for public policy.
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Certainly the proposed constitutional anti-gay-marriage amendment is rooted in fear and hatred. Like flag burning, gay marriage is not sufficiently significant to warrant a constitutional amendment.
    While I'm not for a Constitutional amendment I would by no means claim that such an amendment is based in hatred. Fear? Certainly. But not fear of gays.
  3. #243  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Its inferred, unless happiness and hateful relationships are not mutually exclusive (I guess if you are a masochist it may not be).

    Surur
    As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Elementary." Hate and abuse leads to unhappiness but not all unhappiness stems from hate and abuse. I believe it to be a colossal mistake to divorce merely because of personal unhappiness since there are so many other options.
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    .........But would you be opposed to prohibiting a certain type of household if the evidence suggested that type of household has a higher rate of relationship failure?.....
    Of course I would be opposed. Can one imagine bureaucrats deciding on which households to permit and which ones to forbid on the the suggestion of evidence. If the state can assert its authority in this space because the "evidence suggests," then it can do anything it wants. We call that "arbitrary and capricious."

    [We have never completely prohibited any kinds of households but until WWII we certainly discouraged them. Many landlords would not rent to single people much less two people of the same gender.]

    Even if the evidence were convincing, rather than merely suggestive, how does one define "relationship failure?" How would one define success? Would one argue that any relationship that does not end in the death of one of the partners is a failure? I can hardly conceive of a definition for either failure or success that would be consistent with the judgements of the people in the relationships.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/16/2006 at 05:10 PM.
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Elementary." Hate and abuse leads to unhappiness but not all unhappiness stems from hate and abuse. I believe it to be a colossal mistake to divorce merely because of personal unhappiness since there are so many other options.
    You oppose, but would you prohibit? I am now wondering what your views on abortions are. Is it enough to have a (legal) abortion if having a child would make you unhappy?

    Regarding the likelihood of relationship breakup amongst gays, whats the stats for gays who have actually made the commitment of marriage. Probably hard to come by in USA.

    Surur
  6. #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Of course I would be opposed. Can one imagine bureaucrats deciding on which households to permit and which ones to forbid on the the suggestion of evidence. If the state can assert its authority in this space because the "evidence suggests," then it can do anything it wants. We call that "arbitrary and capricious."
    But, you see, it's already being done. The courts require adoption agencies to thoroughly interview and screen potential adoptive parents. All sorts of questions are asked of the prospective parents, their marriage, their views on child rearing, etc. Why ask all of these questions? Because "evidence suggests" that certain parents will likely not be good candidates for adoption.
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    You oppose, but would you prohibit?
    No. But, again, I'm not the one proposing new laws redefining marriage.

    I am now wondering what your views on abortions are. Is it enough to have a (legal) abortion if having a child would make you unhappy?
    No, but I don't see how that relates.

    Regarding the likelihood of relationship breakup amongst gays, whats the stats for gays who have actually made the commitment of marriage. Probably hard to come by in USA.

    Surur
    I looked but couldn't find anything. The stats are probably there since some countries have had same sex civil unions for over a decade.
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ..........As I mentioned before, I can't argue with personal experiences. But, as with my own experiences, they are anecdotal and should not be the basis for public policy.
    Thank you for your gentle instruction. The item you quoted was in parens. It was clearly an anecdote. It was an anecdote that I thought might shed light on what makes strong families. It was not presented as evidence in favor of any policy, public or otherwise. If I had not known the difference between stories and evidence when this thread began, I would clearly have done so at the point in the thread at which I introduced my little story. As it is, I lecture on evidence and really did not need the instruction of the thread or of you.
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    But, you see, it's already being done. The courts require adoption agencies to thoroughly interview and screen potential adoptive parents. All sorts of questions are asked of the prospective parents, their marriage, their views on child rearing, etc. Why ask all of these questions? Because "evidence suggests" that certain parents will likely not be good candidates for adoption.
    Adoption agencies are the community, not the state. While the courts may hear them, and even defer to them, they represent us, not the government. Social workers are professionals, not bureaucrats. In any case, there is a significant difference between judging or favoring individual households, on whatever evidence, and outlawing whole classes on suggestions. (Are you the same hoovs who was so recently instructing us on rhetoric? Yes, you really are the same one are you not?)
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/16/2006 at 06:12 PM.
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Adoption agencies are the community, not the state. While the courts may hear them, and even defer to them, they represent us, not the government. Social workers are professionals, not bureaucrats. In any case, there is a significant difference between judging or favoring individual households, on whatever evidence, and outlawing whole classes on suggestions.
    Again, they already do. State departments of family services dictate that homes that would put the child at risk are not eligible. How do they demonstrate that the child would be at risk on any other basis than what the "evidence would suggest"?

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    (Are you the same hoovs who was so recently instructing me on evidence?)
    Evidently in the hubris of my youth I said something that really annoyed you. My apologies, no further admonishments are necessary.
  11. #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Elementary." Hate and abuse leads to unhappiness but not all unhappiness stems from hate and abuse.
    They certainly account for more than their fair share.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I believe it to be a colossal mistake to divorce merely because of personal unhappiness since there are so many other options.
    Do you, indeed? How many bad relationships have you been in? What options did you consider?

    I could offer some counsel but it might be based upon personal experience. I could tell you that in more than seventy years, I have had many divorces among my family and friends. I could tell you that there were few in which at least one party had no options that they could identify. I could tell you that I always counseled in favor of patience, forbearance, and "counting one's blessings." Needless to say, I have a lot to account for.

    I could tell you about the children of those divorces. I could tell you that, though angry and resentful, they know that they are better off.

    However, that would only be anecdote; unless you have personal experience to validate it, you should dismiss it out of hand. Since we are being really careful about rhetoric here, lest we mislead, one may also wish to discount that which is merely opinion.
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Again, they already do. State departments of family services dictate that homes that would put the child at risk are not eligible. How do they demonstrate that the child would be at risk on any other basis than what the "evidence would suggest"?......
    Perhaps. Perhaps you still do not appreciate the difference between what these agencies do and what you asked my opinion on.

    You asked, ".........But would you be opposed to prohibiting a certain type of household if the evidence suggested that type of household has a higher rate of relationship failure?....."

    These agencies make decisions on homes on a case by case basis. They may reject a traditional family or a gay family. They do not make decisions on the basis of class. They do not accept all traditional families and reject all gay families. That is to say, they do not judge on type.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/16/2006 at 07:47 PM.
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ........Evidently in the hubris of my youth I said something that really annoyed you. My apologies, no further admonishments are necessary.
    Not at all; one should not flatter oneself. You merely patronized me. You are certainly not the first to do that and are not likely to be the last. Since I am not the only one, I need not take it personally.
  14. #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    ........Evidently in the hubris of my youth I said something that really annoyed you. My apologies, no further admonishments are necessary.
    If one is to patronize me, one should really do it before the champagne and preferably before the martini.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ...........Regarding the likelihood of relationship breakup amongst gays, whats the stats for gays who have actually made the commitment of marriage. Probably hard to come by in USA.

    Surur
    Is it really relevant to anything important? Whatever the mean and the median, the total distribution is so wide and flat as to be of no use for making policy, even if there was a legitimate body to make such policy.
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I can't argue with your personal experience; I'd only say that it is anecdotal, just as my personal experience is. And, while there may not be much data about non-traditional family structures as it relates to same-sex adoptive parents, there is data about other non-traditional family structures. From what I've read, the data on the effects of unmarried parents, single parents, divorced/re-married parents is all negative. That's key because the data available also shows that in countries where same sex unions have been available for several years, only between 1-5% of homosexuals actually entered into such a union. And nearly half of those chose to did so primarily for legal and financial reasons. This and other studies seem to show that the longevity of same sex relationships is much lower than that of opposite sex relationships. This also seems to echo the sentiments of at least on prominent gay activist:
    Yes, our experiences our anecdotal. But from a large pool of anecdotes you can try to draw some conclusions. And same-sex households cannot be fairly compared to other "non-traditional" households. That broad statement would imply that gays/lesbian households fall into the same categories as pimp/*****, single parents, drug addicted households, etc. Most of which, may I point out, are composed of straight people.

    I find the citations very disingenuous. The first cite is to a website that is distinctly pro man/woman marriage, therefore interpretation of their data is mostly likely skewed. (http://www.marriagedebate.com/)

    The second cite (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/c...l=37&Ses=3]the sentiments of at least on prominent gay activist) is simply a transcript of hearings of the Canadian Senate (and cites no factual data) in which their law to limit marriage as being between a man and a woman is read. So, again their is a presupposed bias in anything being read.

    The "prominent gay activist" quote that is used is comparing long-term committed relationships to an anonymous sexual encounter in a park. And he's stating his opinion. He does not cite to any factual data to back up his opinion. And the full cite from the Canadian Senate transcript is "In the September 16, 2001 issue of Xtra West, in an article entitled "No, no, no to marriage rights," Managing Editor Gareth Kirby . . . . " It then continues with his opinion piece in which he states a 20-minute anonymous sexual experience can be a "profoundly beautiful thing". (Now there's something to sink your teeth into! Of course, I could make a presumption that there are a good number of straight women who would be thrilled to have a full 20 minutes of sex.)

    So, at the 2004 reading of the bill, they had to go back three years to find an article by a "gay activist" that helped support their point of view. That article is has an air of bitterness and sadness of a person who spent his life fighting against being stereoptyped and relegates to second-class status. And lost.

    The "gay activist's" attitude as they cite it is both juvenile and hopelessly incorrect and dated in a "Boys in the Band" movie kind of way. (Boys in the Band was a ground breaking movie in the 70s just because it was about gay people - but it did not reflect and does not reflect the life many of us lead. Whiny, sad, mean, effeminate men are present in both the straight and gay world.)

    It is very saddening and disturbing when people try to equate (or cannot see beyond) people whom they apparently don't know or understand with behavior they personally find disturbing. Especially when you attribute that offensive behavior to all members of that group. That is simply prejudice.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Not at all; one should not flatter oneself. You merely patronized me. You are certainly not the first to do that and are not likely to be the last. Since I am not the only one, I need not take it personally.
    Actually, no. My comment about the "youthful hubris" was a bit of humor I thought not out of order. However, what I said about "anecdotal" experiences was not intended to insult you or your intelligence.
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Yes, our experiences our anecdotal. But from a large pool of anecdotes you can try to draw some conclusions. And same-sex households cannot be fairly compared to other "non-traditional" households. That broad statement would imply that gays/lesbian households fall into the same categories as pimp/*****, single parents, drug addicted households, etc. Most of which, may I point out, are composed of straight people
    .
    That's, of course, a foregone conclusion since most of mostly everything that's composed of people is composed of straght people. However, I would add that single parent households can't fairly be compared to pimp/***** households. But I didn't try to lump all non-traditional households into one group for the sake of generalizing, I tried to draw a distinct correlation based on the data.

    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I find the citations very disingenuous. The first cite is to a website that is distinctly pro man/woman marriage, therefore interpretation of their data is mostly likely skewed. (http://www.marriagedebate.com/)
    It seems that we're at somewhat of a stalemate then since we find each other's data suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    It is very saddening and disturbing when people try to equate (or cannot see beyond) people whom they apparently don't know or understand with behavior they personally find disturbing. Especially when you attribute that offensive behavior to all members of that group. That is simply prejudice.
    I don't know if you were intending to imply this, but I don't believe I have done such a thing.
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    However, that would only be anecdote; unless you have personal experience to validate it, you should dismiss it out of hand. Since we are being really careful about rhetoric here, lest we mislead, one may also wish to discount that which is merely opinion.
    I hope you got it out of your system now.
  20. #260  
    Quote:
    I am now wondering what your views on abortions are. Is it enough to have a (legal) abortion if having a child would make you unhappy?
    No, but I don't see how that relates.


    I am wondering where you draw the border between moralizing and personal happiness. Obviously the catholic church does not care very much about personal happiness, and so far you don't seem to place too much priority on it either. I was trying to get another dimension on the same issue, being where society draws the line betwee people seeking happiness and where they interfere with their lives.

    Surur

Posting Permissions