Gay Marriage Brain Lock

Some combination of deceitful advocacy, blind obtuseness and political correctness has afflicted both sides of the gay marriage debate with brain lock. Jill from Brilliant at Breakfast provides some lunchtime fare with an extended excerpt from the Supreme Court transcript illustrating two easy questions no one seemed able to answer.

First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it? The attorney meant to argue against gay marriage had no clear answer here. I doubt that is becasue he is stupid, and he shopuldn't be advocating in favor of gay marriage, so that leaves me thinking he was burdened by political correctness.

A reason to oppose gay marriage was offered by black ministers in Massachusetts when that state's Supreme Court opened the discussion in 2003. This is from a Feb 10 2004 article now archived, but excerpted here:

Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said black ministers have many reasons for speaking out against gay marriage.

"We're weighing in on this because we're concerned with the epidemic rate of fatherlessness in America and in our community, and we don't think gay marriage helps that cause," he said.

I am reading between the lines a bit but I took that to mean that these inner-city ministers are trying very hard to persuade twenty year old gangsta wanna-bes that marriage is a great idea. Although they subsequently got help from Beyonce, who dressed like a hooker and told them to put a ring on it, these ministers seem to be concerned that if marriage is re-branded as a "gay thing" that it won't help them break through with their hyper-macho target audience.

Well; I'm not a black minister. Maybe inner city youth aren't so homophobic now (or ever), or maybe we shouldn't let the homophobia of inner city youth drive our social policy. But I don't see proud progressives saying "I understand gay marriage might further reduce marriage in the inner city, but it's a small price to pay". Instead, they are pretending there are no foreseeable consequences whatsoever. If another progressive experiment wreaks even more havoc in the inner city, well, who could have seen it coming, right?

Various judges extended the brain lock to the subject of marriage as an instrument of procreation:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

Mr. Cooper eventually makes one of two good points. He reminds the court that the man is likely to be fertile whether the womon is or not, and the woman has an interest in assuring his monogamy.

The obvious point to which he barely alludes is simple leadership by example - it is entirely possible that both of these adults have children/nieces/nephews of marriageable age, and both would want to set a positive example of the importance of marriage.

MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that — to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. Outside of that marriage. That's the marital — that's the marital norm. Society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is — just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world.

I understand the progressives who want to pretend the possible problems don't exist. I am baffled by the hired mouthpiece's reticence on these points.

CREEPING TOWARDS HONESTY:

Brilliant quotes Amanda Marcotte at Slate:

We've given the homophobes plenty of time to think this over. It's time to move on without them.

I'll feel a certain comfort - cold, perhaps - when prominent progressives write that yes, gay marriage may prompt homophobes including inner city black males and working class whites to be even less interested in marriage than they are now, but that is OK. Move on without them.

But to conduct a broad social experiment while insisting that there is no experiment underway at all is... well, pretty typical, but still scary.

SINCE YOU ASK: As part of the war on working class marriage, let's not forget the Unaffordable Care Act subsidies, which apply to the employee but not the spouse or kids.

Comments

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"This is how post-modern blithering idiots try to turn anything resembling civil discourse into a shouting match."

I'm sorry, boris, but civil discourse is not possible at all when one or more of the participants insists on using specific terminology and language that is, objectively untrue and in addition is verifiably hurtful and insulting to others.

"That is how you can take using the term "natural parents" and compare it to vile ugly racism."

And I did not do that. The term "natural parents" is both inaccurate and insulting because it implies that any parents who did not give birth to their children are not natural. The idea that same-sex marriage (and that interracial marriage, in the past) is "unnatural" is a completely different usage of the word "natural." I'm not saying the term "natural parents" is analogous to the claim that same-sex marriage or interracial marriage is "unnatural." When you're saying "natural parents," it implies something insulting, but that insulting implication is a completely different usage from when you say "interracial marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is "unnatural." There you're implying that such relationships are evil, or beastly. That's not why "natural parent" is insulting. It doesn't imply evil or beastly. In THAT context, it implies "real" versus "not real." That is, that "natural parents" -- i.e., biological or birth parents -- are real, valid, legitimate parents, and that adoptive or step-parents, etc., are somehow not real parents, not legitimate, not valid.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

And because I know these are difficult concepts for you, and because I also know you know very little about the history of miscegenation laws, I will just add, for clarification purposes, that when I tell you that the argument about same-sex marriage being unnatural is the same argument that was made in the past against interracial marriage, I am referring to the SECOND definition of "unnatural" -- the one in which it means beastly or vile. That's the meaning of "unnatural" that that Republican woman quoted in the Marietta Daily Journal had in mind. She believes that it's evil or beastly or vile for two men or two women to marry. And that same argument was made against interracial marriage.

[boris]

'When you're saying "natural parents," it implies something insulting ...'

That's pure crap. It's no more insulting than using the term "natural hair color".

'but that insulting implication is a completely different usage from when you say "interracial marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is "unnatural."'

I have not said that.

"She believes that it's evil or beastly or vile for two men or two women to marry."

So you're a mind reader now. If this quote is accurate ...

“Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,”

... it's possible she just meant the natural definition of marriage, as previously claimed Clinton and Obama, is one man one woman.

As shown on this thread ... you are hardly the person to trust on what other people mean. You have one lousy track record of interpreting what I have written, and have admitted faking it to "teach a lesson".

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"It's no more insulting than using the term "natural hair color"."

No, you're wrong, it's possible for a hair color not to be your real hair color, it's not possible to be a parent but not a real parent. Either you're a parent or you're not a parent.

"... it's possible she just meant the natural definition of marriage, as previously claimed Clinton and Obama, is one man one woman."

It's possible, but highly unlikely, since she talked about two men or two women not having the "right equipment to have a sexual relationship." Either way, it's insulting, ignorant, and factually incorrect -- just as it was insulting, ignorant, and factually incorrect to say that interracial marriage was unnatural. It isn't unnatural in either sense of that word, and neither is same-sex marriage.

"You have one lousy track record of interpreting what I have written,"

No, I have interpreted your writing accurately. The problem is that you are unwilling to take responsibility for the plain meaning of what you have written, for what it implies, and for how it affects other people.

"...and have admitted faking it to "teach a lesson"."

No, boris, I have not "admitted faking" anything to "teach you a lesson." I pressed you to tell me what you meant by "natural parents" and you refused. When you said you thought I knew what you meant, I said yes I did, but I was trying to get you to take responsibility for what your language implied. That's not "teaching a lesson." It's taking responsibility for the meaning of the words you use, which you have consistently refused to do. You know damn well that the term "natural parent" implies that parents who did not create their children together biologically are somehow not real or legitimate parents. You know that, but you refuse to admit it. I was trying to get you to admit it, which is nowhere in the vicinity of "admitting that I faked" not understanding what you meant.

[boris]

"No, you're wrong, it's possible for a hair color not to be your real hair color, it's not possible to be a parent but not a real parent. Either you're a parent or you're not a parent."

More blithering. The term "real parent" is used to refer to a natural parent. I think the usage is often inappropriate ... as in "you can't tell me what to do you're not my real mom" ... but there it is. Wrong again.

That's not "teaching a lesson."

That's how the phrase is used KK.

It continues to amaze how post-modern blithering idiots can work up such indignation over using the term "natural parents". So hurtful to adoptive parents you see. Well that's crap. In the context of adoption it is not particularly inaccurate to use the term "birth mother". Using that term for a family raising their own children would be inaccurate and silly. A term like "biological parents" is clumsy and clinical and is taken by many readers (as I have learned) to mean DNA is all that's important and the concept of "raising" the children is being left out.

So its all "change the language changes the culture" pomo political correctness.

The term "natural parent" is U N F A I R ! ! !

And so is using any word that allows society to favor or promote that ideal.

[Cecil Turner]

So its all "change the language changes the culture" pomo political correctness.

Yeah, brilliant. And in this case it's also the appropriate legal term:

Natural Parent
A biological parent of a child, as opposed to adoptive parents and step-parents.

A quick google of US Code turns up plenty of examples, like this bit from immigration law definitions

. . . if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided . . .

"Natural" parent, mother, father, or sibling is used 16 times in that section alone by my count. Which proves you're an insensitive bigot for using the term, obviously.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"The term "real parent" is used to refer to a natural parent."

"Real parent" and "natural parent" are both meaningless, nonsense terms. All parents are real parents, regardless of how their children come to be their children, and there is no such thing as a "natural" parent or an "artificial" parent. Parents are parents. You can say biological or birth parent, or adoptive parent, to indicate how this particular parent came to be the parent of this particular child, but "natural" parent and "real" parent do not convey any useful meaning.

You want to insist on using a term that does not convey any factual or useful information, go ahead. But don't expect people with brains and hearts to let you get away with it or not call you on it.

[boris]

"You can say biological or birth parent"

Oh can I? You can ... do re mi fa (cough)

[Cecil Turner]

But don't expect people with brains and hearts to let you get away with it . . .

Can I say "fascist"?

(Just checking to see if it's allowed.)

[boris]

"or adoptive parent, to indicate how this particular parent came to be the parent"

Idiotic. As it happens the term "adoptive parent" carries the connotation of also raising the child.

The terms "birth mother" and "birth father" actually connote NOT raising the child you moron. The term "biological parent" is basically the same.

So your idiotic insensitivity crap advocates lesser terms applied to natural parents raising their own childen. Surprise surprise. How insensitive is that?

I'm too insensitive to guess but seems awful blithering to me.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"As it happens the term "adoptive parent" carries the connotation of also raising the child."

Why shouldn't it? Adoptive parents do raise their children. What's wrong with you?

"The terms "birth mother" and "birth father" actually connote NOT raising the child you moron. The term "biological parent" is basically the same."

Who said they connoted raising a child? You're the moron, boris.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"So your idiotic insensitivity crap advocates lesser terms applied to natural parents raising their own childen. Surprise surprise. How insensitive is that?"

Boris, you are so confused about what is being discussed here that it's beyond belief. I don't even know how to untangle it. It's beyond belief. No one would even call parents natural parents or adoptive or birth or biological parents unless it was in some context. Parents are parents. If the parents adopted their children and the subject of the birth parents comes up, then you talk about the birth parents. All I'm saying is you don't refer to an adopted child's birth parents as that child's natural parents. It has nothing to do with raising the child. It has to do with what you're implying about parents who AREN'T the birth parents when you call them the "natural" parents. The fact that the birth parents didn't raise the child in an adoption context is precisely WHY referring to them as the "natural" parents is so offensive!

What is WRONG with you, boris?

[boris]

"Why shouldn't it? Adoptive parents do raise their children. What's wrong with you"

It was a statement of fact. A bad thing in your view apparently. Explains a lot.

"Who said they connoted raising a child?"

You advocated their use in the context of natural parents raising their own children.

So that would be you ... you moron..

[boris]

What I have written ..." In the context of adoption it is not particularly inaccurate to use the term "birth mother". Using that term for a family raising their own children would be inaccurate and silly."

This is some of KK's dishonest blithering ...

I'm saying is you don't refer to an adopted child's birth parents as that child's natural parents

...

The fact that the birth parents didn't raise the child in an adoption context is precisely WHY referring to them as the "natural" parents is so offensive!

That blithering is so poorly written it's difficult to tell but apparently you are implying the opposite of what I actually wrote.

So lets add that to your previous implication about how the evil of using "natural parents" ...

It's disgusting, unnatural, indecent, and a violation of God's law for interracial couples to do that thing that married couples do. It's bad for the children. Society has an interest in protecting the purity of the white race. Society has an interest in protecting children from abusive practices. If God had wanted blacks and whites to marry, he would have made Adam and Eve of different races. It's an affront to the dignity of marriage to allow blacks and whites to marry. If you allow blacks and whites to marry, next they'll be demanding the right to marry monkeys.

Such ugly racism that so easily flows from the darkness of your own hate. But sure, let's hear from your potty mouth keyboard about "natural parent".

[boris]

From Cecil's link ... cue replay ...

Natural Parent

A biological parent of a child, as opposed to adoptive parents and step-parents.

It appears KK is spinning made up shit again just like her "history lesson on interracial marriage".

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"That blithering is so poorly written it's difficult to tell but apparently you are implying the opposite of what I actually wrote."

If it's poorly written that's because I genuinely could not figure out how to clear up your confusion, it was and is so extreme.

I really don't know at this point what you think you mean by natural parents. I really don't. You appear to believe that what you call natural parents are biologically their children's parents and that they raise their children. But then you also seem to believe that referring to parents as biological parents implies that they *didn't* raise their children. In addition, you seem to believe that I want to refer to adoptive parents as biological parents.

Here is a fact: "Natural" parents is a term some people use to mean parents who gave birth to their children.

Here is a fact: Many adoptive parents are offended by the term "natural" parents because it implies that they, the adoptive parents, are not the real parents, even though they are raising the child.

Here is a fact: Neither the term "natural parent" NOR the term "birth parent" or "biological parent" tell you whether said parents are raising or have raised their child or children. All it tells you is that said parents are biologically the parents of said child or children. On the other hand, the term "adoptive parents" *does* imply that said parents are raising or have raised their child. It also implies that they are not the child's biological parents. And if you ask them, "Do you know who your child's natural parents are?" or "Are you in contact with your child's natural parents?" or some such question, you are highly likely to anger and offend them.

Here is a fact: If you insist on using the term "natural parents" when you mean "biological" or "birth" parents, even after you have been told the term is at least potentially offensive to adoptive parents, then you are an asshole. But you do have the right to be an asshole.

Here is a fact: I am done with this particular "conversation." You can have the last word, but I won't know if you do because I'm not returning to this particular thread. I'm not returning to it because I know if I do, and there's another comment from you, I'll be tempted to answer it, and I don't want to do that because I've already spent far more time than I should have trying to educate an ineducable jerk.

[Cecil Turner]

Here is a fact: If you insist on using the term "natural parents" when you mean "biological" or "birth" parents, even after you have been told the term is at least potentially offensive to adoptive parents, then you are an asshole. But you do have the right to be an asshole.

Moronic. In order to make sense in your little lexicon, one would have to specify a "birth father currently raising the child" in order to meet the common (and legal) definition of "natural father." And then claim anyone using the more elegant term is "an asshole" (at least after they've "been told" how your superior speech patterns are mandatory). And it took you pages to make that devastating rhetorical point (which I'm sure plays very well with the PC crowd). Because you obviously have to destroy everyone else's right to free speech in order to preserve the right to "gay marriage" (which of course must be called "marriage" in order not to be offensive, so "het marriage" is the newly approved term for that institution going for millennia as "marriage"). Brilliant.

They say, "Scratch a liberal, and find a Fascist." But it seems lately the "liberals" are mostly self-scratching.

[boris]

"Here is a fact: Neither the term "natural parent" NOR the term "birth parent" or "biological parent" tell you whether said parents are raising or have raised their child or children"

Either dishonest or you don't what you're talking about or both.

From Wiki (look it uo)
Birth father – the biological father of a child who, due to adoption or parental separation, does not raise the child or cannot take care of one.

Just more of your made up pomo shit.

[boris]

No way to tell but my guess is that Kathy Kattenburg favors the wordview, documented extensively by rse, that children raised by their natural parents are an impediment to "progressivenessism" because natural parents transmit too much of the "old ways" to the next generation.

Hence traditional marriage has unfair status (must change the definition) and "natural parents" is offensive to "some group" that can't do what opposite sex couples can do.