• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

danarhea said:
I would not be so hard on her. She is not against gay marriage because she hates gays. She just does not understand that side of the fence. To be honest, neither did I for much of my life. If I wasn't a musician, I would not have met many gays, and would probably still not understand. This is a very difficult issue for some people.
Click to expand...

No. Prejudice is not about hate. Prejudice is about ignorance. Prejudice is believing one group is superior to another without any reason or evidence to back it up. That is exactly what Taylor is. Taylor believes same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. Those aren't my words, but Taylor's words. Taylor bases this belief only on the preconceived idea that since same sex couples can't make children, they are inherently inferior. It does not matter that same sex couples can provide just as stable and loving home for children as opposite sex couples. It does not matter than same sex couples can adopt or use a sperm donor or surrogate. They are inferior simply because they cannot make children and they are not the "ideal". Even though there are biological parents who abuse, neglect, and abandon their children, those parents are more "ideal" than a loving same sex couple simply because they are the biological parents. That is the nature of Taylor's prejudice. Not hate, but clear ignorance.
 
CriticalThought said:
The one part of Walker's ruling that I detested was the idea that the people of California who voted for Prop 8 were acting in animosity towards same sex couples. Now I have to accept that as a fact. They hold the same preconceived ideas as you. They believe same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. That is a prejudice. They believe such only because same sex couples can't make children.
Click to expand...
The people of California voted overwhelmingly to expand all the rights of married people to same-sex couples who form domestic partnerships. I don't see that as an act of a group with "prejudiced animosity" toward gay people.

CriticalThought said:
And just as National Socialists argue an "ideal" race. Prop 8 proponents argue an "ideal" couple. Opposite sex couples are the "ideal". Children being raised by opposite sex parents are the "ideal". Sure, same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples, but it isn't the "ideal". Those inferior couples must be kept separate from the "ideal" couples. They must be recognized as having a lower social standing, because they don't fit in with the "ideal".
Click to expand...
LOL - so now I'm compared with Nazis and Racists because I think the ideal situation for a child - all else being equal - is to be with his or her biological parents. How evil of me not to think that shipping that kid off to an adoptive home is "just as good."

That's just too much.
 
CriticalThought said:
No. Prejudice is not about hate. Prejudice is about ignorance. Prejudice is believing one group is superior to another without any reason or evidence to back it up. That is exactly what Taylor is. Taylor believes same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. Those aren't my words, but Taylor's words. Taylor bases this belief only on the preconceived idea that since same sex couples can't make children, they are inherently inferior. It does not matter that same sex couples can provide just as stable and loving home for children as opposite sex couples. It does not matter than same sex couples can adopt or use a sperm donor or surrogate. They are inferior simply because they cannot make children and they are not the "ideal". Even though there are biological parents who abuse, neglect, and abandon their children, those parents are more "ideal" than a loving same sex couple simply because they are the biological parents. That is the nature of Taylor's prejudice. Not hate, but clear ignorance.
Click to expand...

OK, I can relate to that. I was kind of ignorant for a while, but I think it was a case of being "out of my comfort zone". It's kind of hard to explain, but I used to feel very uncomfortable around gays. That passed as I eventually made a lot of friends in the gay community here in Houston, but I think I can understand how Taylor feels, because I felt like that at one time in my life.
 
Taylor said:
LOL - so now I'm compared with Nazis and Racists because I think the ideal situation for a child - all else being equal - is to be with his or her biological parents. How evil of me not to think that shipping that kid off to an adoptive home is "just as good."
Click to expand...

All else being equal? If all else is equal, then what difference would it make?
 
danarhea said:
Why would the law favor one religion over another, without the reason having to do with the religion in question. That does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...
That's why I put "favor" in quotes - it's more of a "coincidentally agrees with." The state should make laws that are best for the state - if the law happens to accord with a church or not is no basis for tossing out the law. Likewise, there should absolutely be no requirement that the state treat religions equally. It should treat them not at all. If someone were to open the 1st Church of the Bigoted Homophobes - surely the government isn't required to ensure its laws are somehow "equal" with the teaching of this church.
 
Taylor said:
That's why I put "favor" in quotes - it's more of a "coincidentally agrees with." The state should make laws that are best for the state - if the law happens to accord with a church or not is no basis for tossing out the law. Likewise, there should absolutely be no requirement that the state treat religions equally. It should treat them not at all. If someone were to open the 1st Church of the Bigoted Homophobes - surely the government isn't required to ensure its laws are somehow "equal" with the teaching of this church.
Click to expand...

Here is where I differ from you. I feel strongly that the state should make laws that are best for the individual, and that was the beauty of the thinking of our forefathers. They based all rights on property. Therefore, if somebody is doing something that does not injure you or your property, they are allowed to do that. That the state should make laws that are best for the state, I would be shaking in my boots.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
All else being equal? If all else is equal, then what difference would it make?
Click to expand...
I say "all else equal" because invariably someone brings up britney spears or some other example of an ideally-bad heterosexual case to compare to an ideally-good homosexual case.
 
Taylor said:
I say "all else equal" because invariably someone brings up britney spears or some other example of an ideally-bad heterosexual case to compare to an ideally-good homosexual case.
Click to expand...

That aside, the fact is you hold the preconceived notion that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples and thus need to be designated in an allegedly "separate but equal" institution. You support forcing same sex couples into a lower social and cultural standing simply because they can't make babies. Not on the basis of their parenting ability but on the basis that they can't do what two horny opposite sex teenagers in the back seat of a car can unintentionally do. Furthermore, you support denying the children of same sex parents the benefits inherent in the social and cultural standing of marriage. I really can't find any word for that other than prejudice.
 
danarhea said:
Here is where I differ from you. I feel strongly that the state should make laws that are best for the individual, and that was the beauty of the thinking of our forefathers. They based all rights on property. Therefore, if somebody is doing something that does not injure you or your property, they are allowed to do that. That the state should make laws that are best for the state, I would be shaking in my boots.
Click to expand...
Oh yes I agree with that. Except maybe the emphasis on property. Our inalienable rights were adapted from John Locke's philosophy, only he had them as "life, liberty, and property" - the word property was consciously and purposely removed and replaced with "pursuit of hapiness" by our founding fathers because they believed the state had right to tax (i.e. take property) insofar as it led to a civil govenment.
 
CriticalThought said:
That aside, the fact is you hold the preconceived notion that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples and thus need to be designated in an allegedly "separate but equal" institution.
Click to expand...
Now you're making no sense. In the first you accuse me of holding one couple inferior to the other, in the next you accuse me of wanting to put them in a separate but equal institution. Which is it?
 
CriticalThought said:
No. Prejudice is not about hate. Prejudice is about ignorance. Prejudice is believing one group is superior to another without any reason or evidence to back it up. That is exactly what Taylor is. Taylor believes same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. Those aren't my words, but Taylor's words. Taylor bases this belief only on the preconceived idea that since same sex couples can't make children, they are inherently inferior. It does not matter that same sex couples can provide just as stable and loving home for children as opposite sex couples. It does not matter than same sex couples can adopt or use a sperm donor or surrogate. They are inferior simply because they cannot make children and they are not the "ideal". Even though there are biological parents who abuse, neglect, and abandon their children, those parents are more "ideal" than a loving same sex couple simply because they are the biological parents. That is the nature of Taylor's prejudice. Not hate, but clear ignorance.
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect characterization, I wish I had time to rebut tonight but it's already 2:10. Will return to discuss tomorrow!
 
Taylor said:
Now you're making no sense. In the first you accuse me of holding one couple inferior to the other, in the next you accuse me of wanting to put them in a separate but equal institution. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the word, "allegedly". Alleged means declared but not proven. I'll post it again for ya.

That aside, the fact is you hold the preconceived notion that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples and thus need to be designated in an allegedly "separate but equal" institution. You support forcing same sex couples into a lower social and cultural standing simply because they can't make babies. Not on the basis of their parenting ability but on the basis that they can't do what two horny opposite sex teenagers in the back seat of a car can unintentionally do. Furthermore, you support denying the children of same sex parents the benefits inherent in the social and cultural standing of marriage. I really can't find any word for that other than prejudice.
 
CriticalThought said:
Taylor believes same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. Those aren't my words, but Taylor's words.
Click to expand...
I want to clear up this point before I go to bed. This is not my belief and I didn't remember saying this but I did here when I carelessly copied your wording in responding to something you said. The post preceding that one correctly states my position that we we place greater importance on opposite-sex unions than same-sex unions.

I have no basis to say - nor do I believe - that one relationship is superior to another based on sexual orientation. The "superior" relationship is the one that makes you most happy.
 
Taylor said:
I have no basis to say - nor do I believe - that one relationship is superior to another based on sexual orientation. The "superior" relationship is the one that makes you most happy.
Click to expand...

Oh, for pete sake.

You support forcing same sex couples into the lower social and cultural standing of civil unions simply because they can't make babies. Not on the basis of their parenting ability but on the basis that they can't do what two horny opposite sex teenagers in the back seat of a car can unintentionally do. Furthermore, you support denying the children of same sex parents the benefits inherent in the social and cultural standing of marriage. Sorry, but I can't buy that you view opposite sex couples and same sex couples as equal as long as they are both happy, when you have made it clear that you support policy that designates same sex couples as inferior.

Don't try to hide your prejudice. Nothing you have said in the posts since you argued that opposite sex couples are superior for their ability to procreate has suggested that you don't hold that notion. You know as well as I do that allowing a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples would not increase or decrease the likelihood of opposite sex couples procreating. The only reason you want to exclude same sex couples from marriage is because they can't procreate, and there is no basis to do that aside from upholding the perceived superior stature of opposite sex couples. If marriage was only about the importance of procreation then the policy would be that nobody who couldn't procreate would be allowed to marry.

If that is not the case, then tell me why an infertile opposite sex couple is justified in getting married but a same sex couple is not?
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
As a whole, opposite sex unions are superior in that they can produce offspring. What homosexual couple wouldn't want to be able to accomplish that together if they could?
Click to expand...

What about adoption? Any homosexual couple could adopt a kid and raise it like it was their own. I fail to see any difference between that and a straight couple that makes the kid the old fashioned way. Or there's homosexual couples who have children from a previous heterosexual marriage. They can still be just as capable step parents as their straight counterparts.
 
CriticalThought said:
Actually Tucker, this is the most important part of my post. If you are going to argue that marriage exists for the benefit of raising children then you need to address this part of my argument...

You want to hear an interesting fact? 8 to 10 million children in this country are being raised by gay parents or same sex couples. The American Pediatric Association has argued that same sex marriage would greatly benefit those children. I think you just made a superb argument for the institution of same sex marriage in this country.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to address that part of your argument because that's the type of argument SSM proponents should be making. That's what the point of my initial post was. Using gender discrimination doesn't work. This does.
 
8 to 10 million? Sources please. That sounds like a "pulled from my ass" number.
 
CriticalThought said:
Tucker if you hold the position that it is irrational to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then don't debate that it is rational.
Click to expand...

I'm debating that in order to promote same-sex marriage, one has to address the legitimate arguments presented by the opposition. To do this, one must get past the gender discrimination argument because their legitimate arguments act as a rebuttal for that by presenting a case for the State's interest in gender-based marriage rules.

Notice that once I pointed out their legitimate case, you moved away from the gender-discrimination argument and into the raising children argument. IMO, that's where the case for SSM will be won. The argument must be made that these unions should be recognized primarily for the purpose of raising children.
 
MrVicchio said:
8 to 10 million? Sources please. That sounds like a "pulled from my ass" number.
Click to expand...

The number was listed by Department of Health and Human Services' Child Welfare Information Gateway: Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents-Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents. However, the statistic is referenced to a 1990 book that was published by the editors of Harvard Law Review (Editors of the Harvard Law Review. (1990). Sexual Orientation and the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)) Upon further digging, the book arose from a lengthy piece published in the May 1989 issue of Harvard Law Review.

That article contains a sentence that reads, "Approximately three million gay men and lesbians in the United States are parents, and between eight and ten million children are raised in gay or lesbian households." That statistic is referenced to the American Bar Association's annual meeting held on August 25, 1987 at which there was a forum for "family law experts." No further details are provided. In short, the figure was likely an estimate from one of the participants at that forum.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The two of you, also sound more like libertarians. I was never a fan of Goldwater. Would you say that your views are similar to his?
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
I grew up a Goldwater Conservative. I actually met him once, when I was young, and got to shake his hand. I would say that had a definite influence on my political beliefs.

To answer your question, I would call myself a Conservative with some Libertarian leanings. Not a complete Libertarian, though.
Click to expand...
Had some things going on Cap. I'm a conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan model myself, not a libertarian per se but leaning as closely to that as possible.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The number was listed by Department of Health and Human Services' Child Welfare Information Gateway: Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents-Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents. However, the statistic is referenced to a 1990 book that was published by the editors of Harvard Law Review (Editors of the Harvard Law Review. (1990). Sexual Orientation and the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)) Upon further digging, the book arose from a lengthy piece published in the May 1989 issue of Harvard Law Review.


That article contains a sentence that reads, "Approximately three million gay men and lesbians in the United States are parents, and between eight and ten million children are raised in gay or lesbian households." That statistic is referenced to the American Bar Association's annual meeting held on August 25, 1987 at which there was a forum for "family law experts." No further details are provided. In short, the figure was likely an estimate from one of the participants at that forum.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen that before, I've seen some other stuff but not numbers on that level. Thank you for the info.
 
Tucker Case said:
I have no reason to address that part of your argument because that's the type of argument SSM proponents should be making. That's what the point of my initial post was. Using gender discrimination doesn't work. This does.
Click to expand...

You aren't listening very well. Both arguments, gender discrimination and the argument for the rights of children being raised by same sex couples, are parts of Judge Walker's ruling. Walker's ruling highlighted the fact that the state allows infertile and elderly couples to marry, and therefore has not made procreation a requirement for marriage. The witnesses presented by the pro same sex marriage side provided considerable expert testimony and evidence that same sex couples are only different from opposite sex couples in the respect that same sex couples can't procreate. As such, it is clearly gender discrimination to force same sex couples into an inherently culturally inferior institution solely on the basis that their sex makes them incapable of producing kids of their own. It also ignores the fact that same sex couples have all the same options as infertile heterosexual couples, such as adoption or the use of a sperm donor or surrogate. Furthermore, allowing same sex couples to marry does not decrease the likelihood that opposite sex couples will continue to marry or procreate, it only provides an inherent benefit to the state by providing more loving, stable homes in which children can be raised. The arguments of gender discrimination and the rights of children of same sex couples are one in the same.
 
CriticalThought said:
You aren't listening very well. Both arguments, gender discrimination and the argument for the rights of children being raised by same sex couples, are parts of Judge Walker's ruling. Walker's ruling highlighted the fact that the state allows infertile and elderly couples to marry, and therefore has not made procreation a requirement for marriage. The witnesses presented by the pro same sex marriage side provided considerable expert testimony and evidence that same sex couples are only different from opposite sex couples in the respect that same sex couples can't procreate. As such, it is clearly gender discrimination to force same sex couples into an inherently culturally inferior institution solely on the basis that their sex makes them incapable of producing kids of their own. It also ignores the fact that same sex couples have all the same options as infertile heterosexual couples, such as adoption or the use of a sperm donor or surrogate. Furthermore, allowing same sex couples to marry does not decrease the likelihood that opposite sex couples will continue to marry or procreate, it only provides an inherent benefit to the state by providing more loving, stable homes in which children can be raised. The arguments of gender discrimination and the rights of children of same sex couples are one in the same.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it. Where in this thread prior to my post was the topic of children being raised by same sex couples brought up as an argument in favor of same sex marriage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom