Powered by TypePad

« The Unbearable Lightness of Democratic Principles | Main | When Life Hands You Lululemons... »

March 27, 2013

Comments

You poorly serve.

Bah, Kat, read porch's 5:08 again. Kagan interrupted, and inserted what she thought was funny, but wasn't what he was saying. And now you want to push that he made up the meme.
==============

Porchlight

Cooper was backpedaling, trying to fix his response to Kagan's question so it made sense. The clear non-sense of Cooper's reply to Kagan's question is why the audience was laughing.

He didn't do a very good job of it, though, because his backpedaled argument made no sense, either -- as I've already indicated in a couple of my replies to Tom.

Go back and read it. He started off in his reply to Kagan by saying that it is very rare that both parties in a marriage are infertile, which set up the rest of his argument after Kagan's interruption. He stumbled on the line, hence the laughter, but there was no backpedaling.

Still waiting for the quote where he argued what you said he argued - that couples 55 and older can still have children.

Chubby

another absurdity in their logic occurred to me this morning. As TM said, "... they are pretending there are no foreseeable consequences whatsoever."

So, if the definition of marriage changes it's going to totally change things for homosexuals, but it's not going to change one little thing for anyone else? how does that work?

one of their favorite false analogies is that supporting gay marriage is like opposing slavery. so, the when slaves obtained their liberty, that didn't change anything at all in society for anyone but the slaves?

No, that would be good service.

Kat is busy reporting to the hive what idiots they are.
=============

Fool me once.

Who is surprised that Kagan acts like a smarmy leftist instead of a Supreme Court Justice? Kat, this episode is an embarrassment to Kagan. She'll probably not be able to keep from further embarrassing herself.

Do her a favor. Let her know.
=============

Kathy Kattenburg

"Bah, Kat, read porch's 5:08 again. Kagan interrupted, and inserted what she thought was funny, but wasn't what he was saying. And now you want to push that he made up the meme."

I did read it again, because you asked so nicely, although I really didn't need to, because I had listened to the entire relevant section on the audiotape because I even joined this thread. But as I said, I did read porchlight's clip of the relevant section of the transcript again, and lo and behold, much to my surprise, porchlight completely omitted the portion of the transcript that came immediately before the part he quoted, in which Justice Kagan made it abundantly clear that she was asking Cooper to respond to a question relating to HIS previous argument that marriage must remain heterosexual only because of its connection to procreation. She was actually responding to HIS assertion that "genderless" marriage "sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes. ..."

I can certainly understand why you were not aware of this previous exchange, since porchlight chose not to include it, but it does definitively debunk the idea that Kagan is the one who confused the issue.

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

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?

Kathy Kattenburg

"BEFORE I ever joined this thread." "Because" was a typo.

boris

'She was actually responding to HIS assertion that "genderless" marriage "sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes. ..."'

Clearly his assertion is true. Restricting the term marriage to opposite sex couples does maintain the connection. Consider an assertion that there's a connection between being a woman and bearing children. If some women never bear children that does not sever the connection. If men start bearing children too that would sever the connection.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Consider an assertion that there's a connection between being a woman and bearing children. If some women never bear children that does not sever the connection."

There's a connection between being in a heterosexual relationship and having children, whether you're married or not. Marriage equality changes nothing about that connection; heterosexual couples still are connected to the possibility of having children. And so are gay couples, via adoption or in vitro fertilization. The fact that married heterosexual couples can have children through sexual intercourse with each other is not harmed, damaged, or changed by giving same-sex couples the right to legally marry. It's just a false argument.

boris

"The fact that married heterosexual couples can have children through sexual intercourse with each other is not harmed, damaged, or changed by giving same-sex couples the right to legally marry. It's just a false argument."

I disagree but those are not what Cooper and Kagan were talking about. Every person who has ever lived had exactly one mother and one father. One man one woman. That is a special enough fact to warrant the relationship built on that observation to have it's own word, marriage.

You may claim there is no harm in severing that connection and I can claim there is no harm in same sex civil unions and opposite sex marriage.

Justice Walker addresses that this way ... "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays ..."

Aside from having this decided by a judge and the arbitrary "serves no purpose" claim, at least it fairly answers the question "how can the term on some official piece of paper affect your relationship with your partner?"

The answer is ... the words on the piece of paper convey status and human dignity to the bearer. Replacing the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" or "civil union" deprives same sex couples of some measure of status and human dignity.

Granting that ... is it difficult to accept that replacing the natural meaning of the word marriage with the definition for "domestic partnership" or "civil union" deprives traditionally married couples of some measure of status and human dignity?

Kathy Kattenburg

"Every person who has ever lived had exactly one mother and one father. One man one woman. That is a special enough fact to warrant the relationship built on that observation to have it's own word, marriage."

Why, boris? When NOT every person who has ever lived had exactly one mother and one father WHO WERE MARRIED to each other?

"You may claim there is no harm in severing that connection and I can claim there is no harm in same sex civil unions and opposite sex marriage."

Apples and oranges, boris. The harm in denying gay couples the right to marry the person they love, and telling them they can have a civil union or they can live together but they can't marry, is denying them equal access to the same fundamental right every heterosexual person in this country has, which is to marry the person of their choice. It's a specific legal harm that goes to specific constitutional rights. The argument that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because the institution of marriage is somehow harmed by the fact that gay couples cannot create a child together does not go either to any legal constitutional principle or to any truth that can be backed up by science, sociology, or anything else.

Same-sex couples are just as good as opposite-sex couples. They are not inferior. They are not second best. The love they feel is not inferior or second best. There is absolutely no rational justification -- OR justification that stands constitutional scrutiny -- for denying two men or two women the same right to marry the love of their life that any and every other American has. It's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And fortunately, more and more Americans, both in our political leadership and in ordinary life, are coming to see that.

Kathy Kattenburg

"is it difficult to accept that replacing the natural meaning of the word marriage with the definition for "domestic partnership" or "civil union" deprives traditionally married couples of some measure of status and human dignity?"

Not just difficult, impossible -- to see how including gay couples in the right to marry harms anyone. How does the marriage of a same-sex couple you don't even know deny your marriage any status or human dignity? The only way it could do that is if you were assuming that same-sex couples are somehow "less" than opposite sex couples, that the love they feel is less real or less worthy or less legitimate. And I hope you're not saying that.

Porchlight

I can certainly understand why you were not aware of this previous exchange, since porchlight chose not to include it, but it does definitively debunk the idea that Kagan is the one who confused the issue.

Okay, so you've included it.

Now, where is the part where, as you have asserted in this thread, Cooper "suggested that heterosexual couples can still have children even if both are past the age of 55 because men are still fertile after 55"?

or as you put it another way, Cooper

"was arguing that in a marriage where both the man and the woman are over 55, the man's continued fertility is relevant because it means the couple can still have children."

It's not there. Which is one reason why I didn't include it (another is brevity).

boris

'The only way it could do that is if you were assuming that same-sex couples are somehow "less" than opposite sex couples'

Says you. Is there a latin term for the fallacy of trying to use lack of imagination or insight as a substitute for rational argument? If there is that would be a good example.

Is there something that opposite sex couples can do that same sex couples can't? If there is then they're different and different words for their union works for me.

boris

Things that are different are not the same.

And "just as good" is no substitute.

Women are just as good as men, but only women can bear children.

Arguing that some women never bear children has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that statment.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Is there something that opposite sex couples can do that same sex couples can't? If there is then they're different and different words for their union works for me."

Is there something that some opposite sex couples can do that some opposite sex couples can't? If there is, then they're different, and that difference makes absolutely no difference to the legitimacy of their marriage.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Women are just as good as men, but only women can bear children."

Yes, and that's related to an adult consensual couple's right to marry -- how?

"Arguing that some women never bear children has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that statment."

Yes, but it's not the truth of that statement that's in question. The statement that's in question is that the ability or desire to have children determines whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. And there is no logical connection between the ability or desire to have children and the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Now, where is the part where, as you have asserted in this thread, Cooper "suggested that heterosexual couples can still have children even if both are past the age of 55 because men are still fertile after 55"?"

Porchlight, do you know what the word "suggested" means? Assuming you do, then I think you can find where that part is.

boris

that's related to an adult consensual couple's right to marry -- how?

There is something only opposite sex couples can do that zero, nada, no same sex couples can do. That does make the "opposite sex" group differnt. The right to marry is based on belonging to the opposite sex group, not on an unknown ability to do the thing that only opposite sex couples can do. After all opposite sex couples are supposed to marry before they do the thing that only opposite sex couples can do. Obviously it makes sense under that constraint to make belonging to the group that can do the thing that only opposite sex couples can do rather than actually doing it (the thing that only opposite sex couples can do).

Nevertheless, it is the thing that only opposite sex couples can do that created the purpose of marriage.

boris

'Porchlight, do you know what the word "suggested" means?'

Apparently you do not.

Kathy Kattenburg

Boris, your 6:45: Your logic is entirely arbitrary. There's no inherent reason why, if marriage was created for the purpose of having children, and the reason same-sex couples should not have the right to marry is because they cannot produce children that are biologically both of theirs, then there is no reason why infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples that are childless by choice, should be allowed to marry. That is the only logical conclusion to which that line of reasoning leads.

Marriage was created for the purpose of having children means marriage was created for the purpose of having children. If children are the purpose of marriage and the reason human beings created the institution, then marriage should be restricted to people who will have them, or who can have them. Your argument otherwise is inconsistent and arbitrary.

Charles Cooper told Elena Kagan (as part of his response to her question) that it would be unconstitutional for the government to tell heterosexual couples over the age of 55 that they could not marry. If it's unconstitutional to deny heterosexual couples the right to marry, then it's unconstitutional to allow homosexual couples the right to marry. There is, objectively, NOTHING about a relationship in which both members are the same gender that makes it disqualifying for the right to marry. None of the reasons you've come up with, when examined objectively, are adequate to justify denying gay couples the right to marry. It's the way you feel, and I understand that, but you cannot transform feelings, emotions, that have no basis in law or science or public health or any other compelling factor, into imperatives. Legally, you cannot. Marriage equality is coming. You're standing on the wrong side of history, and that is entirely your right to do, but you are.

Kathy Kattenburg

"If it's unconstitutional to deny heterosexual couples the right to marry, then it's unconstitutional to allow homosexual couples the right to marry."

Go on and laugh. That "allow" should be "deny."

boris

"Your logic is entirely arbitrary. There's no inherent reason ..."

No it isn't. Different things have different words.

I have the right to be a man, because I am a man. I have no right to be a whale or a horse or a lion.

Also I would deny that marriage was created by some official of some state or some religion. I assert that the word refers to an arrangement derived from human nature that is only recognized and supported by state and religion.

If you demand an institution that is the same for everybody ... call it civil union. IMO marriage is the civil union of a man and a woman. That is a special relationship that can do something that only opposite sex couples can do ... something no same sex civil union can do.

Kathy Kattenburg

"I have the right to be a man, because I am a man. I have no right to be a whale or a horse or a lion."

Come on, boris. That's just silly. Aside from the obvious response to that silliness, it's not even true. If you were born a man, anatomically, but you feel inside that you're a woman, you do have the right to go through a transgender procedure.

"Also I would deny that marriage was created by some official of some state or some religion."

Marriage was created by human beings, boris, regardless of where you think it "derives." It was created by the aristocracy as a way to legitimize children for political purposes -- marriages were arranged to cement political alliances, etc., etc., and wives who did not bear sons sometimes had a very short life span.

As a general reality, religion was inextricably allied to political power, for most of human history. Nobody cared whether the peasants were married before they had children. Before the Civil War in this country, an entire class of people were denied the right to marry. I don't mean interracial marriages. I mean enslaved black people's "marriages" had no meaning or force in law. They could call themselves married, but it did not give them what we would consider marital rights -- like the right to a family, for one thing.

When you want to demean a group of people (and by you, I don't mean you, boris, I mean in general), one of the ways you do it is by investing particular human institutions, customs, life cycle events, etc., with a special "dignity" that can then be denied to the classes of people who are considered not to merit that dignity. That was the reasoning behind laws forbidding interracial marriage (after slavery). It would cheapen the institution of marriage to let black people marry white people.

There really isn't any argument you and others have used here against same-sex marriage that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage. And I've avoided pointing that out before now, because it always creates such an uproar of outrage to say it, but it's true.

boris

"Come on, boris. That's just silly"

Oh that's silly but going transgender isn't. A man doesn't have the right to be pregnant, how's that? Transgender can't do that can it. Is that demeaning to men to say? Have I taken any man's dignity by asserting that reality? Of course not.

Opposite sex couples have the right to be married because they belong to the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do. That is the group that marriage is defined for.

There really isn't any argument ... that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage

Oh really? You blithering idiot. Can interracial opposite sex couples do the thing that only opposite sex couples can do that no same sex couple can do?

Apparently "suggest" isn't the only word you don't know the meaning to.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Opposite sex couples have the right to be married because they belong to the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do. That is the group that marriage is defined for."

And we're changing that, because defining marriage as only for opposite sex couples is precisely the wrong that we are addressing in this society. Just as we changed the definition of marriage as being only for men and women of the same race, because that was discriminatory and wrong.

"Can interracial opposite sex couples do the thing that only opposite sex couples can do that no same sex couple can do?"

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.

Try to remember that I have refrained from using terms like "blithering idiot" to characterize you, although I've found it hard sometimes. I've typed sentences that describe your motivations in certain ways that you would find insulting, and then deleted them because I didn't want to go there. Or I knew I shouldn't, even if I did want to. If I can remain reasonably civil, so can you. Unless you think I'm better than you are.

Kathy Kattenburg

"A man doesn't have the right to be pregnant, how's that?"

By the way, a man does have the right to be pregnant, science just hasn't found a way yet to make that happen. Perhaps someday it will be possible, and the day that men can get pregnant, I will be leading the cheering section for men's right to get pregnant, because the from the moment that happens, every single law banning abortion or putting abortion clinics out of business will vanish.

boris

"By the way, a man does have the right to be pregnant, science just hasn't found a way yet to make that happen."

By the way same sex couples do have the right to do what only opposite sex couples can do, science just hasn't found a way yet to make that happen.

Tell you what KK, you can associate my position with slavery, racism, wife murder, racism, aristocratic oppression, the civil war, racism, and of course racist racism and really racist racism ... and I can call you a blithering idiot. I'm not worried about you going to insult me because not sure I could tell the difference and wouldn't care anyway.

boris

And you still have not addressed how saying "men don't have the right to be pregnant" is demeaning to men or has deprived any man of dignity.

Yet you claim that the equivalent assertion that same sex couples don't have the right to be in the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do, the group marriage is defined for, is demeaning to a class of people and deprives them of dignity. Thus by analogy above, your claim is refudiated.

If the term civil union lacks the status and dignity society awards to couples in the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do who take on the responsibilities of the institution defined for them to do what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that ... it is my assertion that the status and dignity is awarded on the basis of doing what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that and not for the word "marriage". No matter what it's called, in other countries in other languages the institution for doing what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that is also awarded status and dignity that civil union does not receive.

So therefore we see the status and dignity is awarded on the basis of doing what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that and not on the basis that they're other than same sex. The lesser status for same sex civil union is simply because same sex couples can not do what only opposite sex couples can do which means obviously same sex couples can not take on the responsibilities of the institution defined for those who do what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that.

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

to see how including gay couples in the right to marry harms anyone

Will private organizations be able to disregard the marital status of same sex married people, or will they be required to change their procedures and beliefs? In particular, will religious organizations be required to perform same sex marriages if they perform standard marriages, regardless of their personal and religious beliefs? If so, you do you call that "no harm"?

Kathy Kattenburg

"By the way same sex couples do have the right to do what only opposite sex couples can do, science just hasn't found a way yet to make that happen."

Right, but that has nothing to do with the right to marry. These are separate things: same-sex couples cannot create children together; same-sex couples have the same right to marry as anyone else. Both are true. The right of two people to marry does not hinge on whether their bodies can create children. There's no rational link between the two.

"Tell you what KK, you can associate my position with slavery, racism, wife murder, racism, aristocratic oppression, the civil war, racism, and of course racist racism and really racist racism ... and I can call you a blithering idiot."

Fair enough. You be the person you are, and I will continue to be the person I am.

"And you still have not addressed how saying "men don't have the right to be pregnant" is demeaning to men or has deprived any man of dignity."

Why would I want to address that statement? The fact that men cannot get pregnant is a biological fact, but it doesn't mean they can't get married.

"Yet you claim that the equivalent assertion that same sex couples don't have the right to be in the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do, the group marriage is defined for, is demeaning to a class of people and deprives them of dignity."

The two statements are not equivalent, since capacity to create children has nothing to do with the right to marry.

You are stating an equivalence between two immutable biological facts (men don't get pregnant; same-sex couples don't create children through sex with each other) and a societal institution based on a legal contract created by human beings. There is no equivalence between these two things, boris.

"it is my assertion that the status and dignity is awarded on the basis of doing what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that and not for the word "marriage"."

I understand that that is your assertion. I am asserting that your assertion is untrue, and that denying two adult consenting individuals who love each other the right to the legal and societal validation of marriage, is unconstitutional.

"The lesser status for same sex civil union is simply because same sex couples can not do what only opposite sex couples can do which means obviously same sex couples can not take on the responsibilities of the institution defined for those who do what only opposite sex couples can do in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that."

That is total hogwash. Aside from the fact that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage because they cannot do something that millions of heterosexual couples also cannot do or choose not to do -- aside from that, same-sex couples are raising children every day -- adopted children, children creatd by in vitro fertilization, children that are biologically theirs from earlier heterosexual unions. And your phrase "in the culturally approved arrangement for doing that" is PRECISELY the point. "Culturally approved" is not "biologically mandated." Need I point out the numerous cultural institutions, customs, and/or arrangements that existed at one point or another in U.S. history and were modified, changed, or entirely eliminated as our society evolved and grew?

Kathy Kattenburg

"In particular, will religious organizations be required to perform same sex marriages if they perform standard marriages, regardless of their personal and religious beliefs?"

No.

Chubby

((but that has nothing to do with the right to marry.))

Thomas Sowell: 'Gay marriage' confusions LUN

((The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?

Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.

Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex.

Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality.))

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg wrote:

"No", churches won't have to perform same sex weddings, but also wrote "right to the legal and societal validation of marriage" for homosexuals [emphasis added]. Which of these is it? Just the legal right, or the right to societal validation?

For the record, I don't believe her "no" because of the contraceptive mandate. Does Ms. Kattenburg agree with imposing that on churches against their beliefs?

Melinda Romanoff on Kindle

Another paean at the altar of Social Justice. Thanks to KK for the trail markings.

boris

"The two statements are not equivalent, since capacity to create children has nothing to do with the right to marry"

The word marriage is defined for the group that can do what only opposite sex couples can do. Like saying pregnancy is defined for the group that can do what only women can do. If some women never become pregnant that's irrelevant.

Nobody is denying men the right to be "pregnant". If society decides to give men the right to be called "pregnant", the meaning of word "pregnant" would have to be changed to something else. In which case we lose the word for a woman with child.

Nobody is denying same sex couples the right to be married. Where married is defined as one man one woman they can be "married" when one of them goes transgender. However, where society decides to give same sex couples the right to be called "married", the meaning of word "married" is changed to something like the definition of civil union. In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents.

Based on the voluminous and vociferous vitriol you have spewed against the historical tradition of marriage I expect you to say "good riddance".

And it's pretty obvious that's where your passion lies.

If you left it there it would be bad enough, but you hatefully accuse others of vile motives and mock with disgusting racist filth.

The passion to preserve the traditional meaning of the word is not about excluding anyone, it's about preserving the meaning some consider sacred and others consider foundational to civilization. Literature through the ages and culture and law have made it clear people believe children want to be raised by their own natural parents and people believe that's what's best for them.

Legit studies on children of single parents and step parents indicate those are not what's best for them.

Nobody here advocates for banning single parents, step parents or gay parents but it is a good enough reason for natural parenthood to have its own word.

That's perfectly reasonable, but your hatred is not.

boris

[Marriage] a societal institution based on a legal contract created by human beings

Actually that's not true.

A man and a woman, the only survivors of a mid ocean plane crash, swim to an uninhabited tropical island. Later they fall in love, marry and have children of their own.

No society, no law, no paperwork. it exists aside from those things.

That's why changing the meaning of the word is simply stealing the word for something else.

That is the reality your side denies.

jimmyk

You guys are wasting your time thinking that kaka can grasp even basic logical discourse. Porchlight clearly showed what Cooper had meant in his discussion of the 55 year old couple, yet kaka insists that he meant what the stupid Kagan interjected. I suspect kaka still insists that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

boris

"thinking that kaka can grasp even basic logical discourse"

Kaka demostrates some skill constructing post-modern absurdities. My fun is generally realized by getting Kaka to act like one of bgates spot on parodies. Eg ...

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.
Not quite as funny but this is so typical ...
[Marriage] was created by the aristocracy as a way to legitimize children for political purposes -- marriages were arranged to cement political alliances, etc., etc., and wives who did not bear sons sometimes had a very short life span.

As a general reality, religion was inextricably allied to political power, for most of human history. Nobody cared whether the peasants were married before they had children. Before the Civil War in this country, an entire class of people were denied the right to marry. I don't mean interracial marriages. I mean enslaved black people's "marriages" had no meaning or force in law. They could call themselves married, but it did not give them what we would consider marital rights -- like the right to a family, for one thing.

Kathy Kattenburg

Oh, I missed this one!

A man and a woman, the only survivors of a mid ocean plane crash, swim to an uninhabited tropical island. Later they fall in love, marry and have children of their own.

No society, no law, no paperwork. it exists aside from those things.

*Really.* No society, no law, no paperwork. These two people declare themselves married, and they are married. Why would anyone bother to go to the expense and hassle of planning a wedding then, when they could just say to each other, "We're married!" and be done with it?

One thing I'm still unclear on, though: If they need a marriage certificate to prove they are married for purposes of claiming one of the hundreds of state or federal benefits available to married couples, can they get around that (since they have no marriage certificate, presumably) by saying that they have no marriage certificate, but they are legally married because they say they are?

boris

"*Really.*"

Yes.

Kathy Kattenburg

Well, that's interesting, boris. I didn't know all a couple needs to do to get married is say they're married.

It's heartening though, if true. If we could persuade all the cohabiting couples in the U.S. to say "We're married," we could solve the problem of children being born out of wedlock tomorrow. Today, in fact. It only takes a microsecond to say "We're married."

boris

'If we could persuade all the cohabiting couples in the U.S. to say "We're married," we could solve the problem of children being born out of wedlock tomorrow'

Pretty sure the problem part of children born out of wedlock is not the result of children living with their own natural parents in a family structure, regardless of what poperwork has been filed or not filed as the case may be.

But we do enjoy your continued descent into absurdity and error.

Kathy Kattenburg

Pretty sure the problem part of children born out of wedlock is not the result of children living with their own natural parents in a family structure, regardless of what poperwork has been filed or not filed as the case may be.

Well, I'm surprised, but glad to hear you agree that parents don't have to be married to each other to be good parents.

Perhaps eventually you will come around to agreeing that parents who adopt their children can be good parents.

boris

"but glad to hear you agree"

Doubtful there is much to agree on there KK. Seems to me its been established that children living with their own natural parents in a family structure generally do better than the other situations. Nowhere in there is the claim or implication that any sitution is less than "good". So take your shoody inferences and shove them where the sun never shines.

boris

Just to be clear about what I have claimed ...

The kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents is special enough to have its own word.

That's it.

Contingent on vows with witnesses society has chosen to award that type of family arrangement certain status, legal rights, and benefits while enforcing certain responsibilities and obligations.

If same sex couples want the legal rights, and benefits with enforcement of certain responsibilities and obligations, they can have that with civil uion. The status is not an entitlement but is earned by demonstrating worthiness to society.

Annoying Old Guy
If they [two adults stranded alon on a remote island] need a marriage certificate to prove they are married for purposes of claiming one of the hundreds of state or federal benefits available to married couples

Yeah, when I get stranded with a single other person on a remote island, claiming state and federal benefits is right there on my "to do" list.

I note that Ms. Kattenburg is avoiding the "right to societal validation" question, that is a right to literally _change my mind_ to suit. But that's not harm in Kattenburg's world.

Kathy Kattenburg

Seems to me its been established that children living with their own natural parents in a family structure generally do better than the other situations.

Hard to say one way or the other, given that there is no such thing as "natural" parents and since you haven't explained what you mean by that term, I can't speak to whether a type of parent that doesn't exist is better or worse.

"Nowhere in there is the claim or implication that any sitution is less than "good"."

What does this mean? That there is more than one good parental arrangement, or that there isn't?

Kathy Kattenburg

"The kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents is special enough to have its own word."

There is no special or specific word for a nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents. For one thing, the term "natural parents" is a nonsense term, since there's no such thing as "unnatural" parents. So I can't even get to any other counterpoints unless or until I know what you think a "natural" parent is.

Kathy Kattenburg

"If same sex couples want the legal rights, and benefits with enforcement of certain responsibilities and obligations, they can have that with civil uion."

No, they can't. Civil unions do not provide any of the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

Kathy Kattenburg

"I note that Ms. Kattenburg is avoiding the "right to societal validation" question, that is a right to literally _change my mind_ to suit. But that's not harm in Kattenburg's world."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Same-sex couples do have the right to have their relationships societally validated by the same institution that validates the relationships of opposite-sex couples. What question is it you think I didn't answer?

boris

"Hard to say one way or the other, given that there is no such thing as "natural" parents and since you haven't explained what you mean by that term, I can't speak to whether a type of parent that doesn't exist is better or worse."

Every person who has ever lived has one father and one mather. They can be called "biological parents" or natural parents, as opposed to step parent or adoptive parent.

"until I know what you think a "natural" parent is"

So you agree with me that you are a blithering idiot. Nice to see we finally agree on something significant.

Kathy Kattenburg

"The passion to preserve the traditional meaning of the word is not about excluding anyone, it's about preserving the meaning some consider sacred and others consider foundational to civilization."

Back when interracial marriage was illegal and people were trying to change that, the argument that laws banning interracial marriages were foundational to civilization was also a big one given by opponents of interracial marriage.

As for marriage being something "sacred" that must be limited to opposite-sex couples, that's a religious concept that has no place in secular society. Same-sex marriages don't have to be performed in churches, if the church objects, and they wouldn't be, but lots of opposite-sex couples get married in civil ceremonies (I did), and they're still just as married as opposite-sex couples married in churches or synagogues are.

boris

An earlier quote of mine In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents.

If you weren't such a blithering idiot you would have figured that out by now.

boris

""Back when interracial marriage was illegal ..."

Ho hum that again.

As long as we are making up shit what that was all about I say nobody then was claiming a black person and a white person would be outside the definition of marriage, some fools just didn't want anybody doing that. Not the same thing at all.

So your "example" is just more apples and oranges blithering.

boris
In the 1970s, as adoption search and support organizations developed, there were challenges to the language in common use at the time. The term "natural mother" had been in common use previously. The term "birth mother" was first used in 1956 by Pearl S. Buck. As books like Adoption Triangle by Sorosky, Pannor and Baran were published, and support groups formed like CUB (Concerned United Birthparents), a major shift from natural parent to birthparent [1][2] occurred. Along with the change in times and social attitudes came additional examination of the language used in adoption
Apparently a term in common use became less prefered in the adoption community because there are blithering idiots who infer the use of the word "natural" implies anything else is "unatural".
boris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_adoption

Kathy Kattenburg

"An earlier quote of mine In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents."

If you weren't such a blithering idiot you would have figured that out by now.

Figured what out? That you used the term "natural parents" before without defining the term, so now I should know what you mean by it?

Kathy Kattenburg

As long as we are making up shit what that was all about I say nobody then was claiming a black person and a white person would be outside the definition of marriage, some fools just didn't want anybody doing that. Not the same thing at all.

That's what's called a distinction without a difference.

Kathy Kattenburg

Apparently a term in common use became less prefered in the adoption community because there are blithering idiots who infer the use of the word "natural" implies anything else is "unatural".

LOL! What else would it imply? If you have a category of parents who are "natural" parents, then what would parents who are not in that category be called?

boris

"That you used the term "natural parents" before without defining the term, so now I should know what you mean by it?"

The phrase "children are raised by their own natural parents" provides enoug context IMO. But since it is and has been a commonly used term its definition can readily be looked up using google or any other search engine.

Also I do not believe you really didn't know what that meant since I have been using it all along. You're just pretending its an unnatural term.

boris

"LOL! What else would it imply?"

Adoptive parent or step parent. There is no such thing as "unnatural parent" except in the tiny brains of blithering idiots.

boris

"That's what's called a distinction without a difference"

A distinction and a difference. Nobody wants to stop same sex couples from entering civil unions and trying to make children together.

Seems to me you are trying to use lack of imagination and insight as a substitue for rational argument, again.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Nobody wants to stop same sex couples from entering civil unions and trying to make children together."

Well, actually, yes they are. Lots of people want to stop same-sex couples from having children, whether adopted, their own from earlier relationships, or created through in vitro fertilization.

I cannot believe you can be so ill informed or maybe it's naive, as to truly believe that no one is trying to stop same-sex couples from having children.

Kathy Kattenburg

"A distinction and a difference."

No. A distinction without a difference. Whether you're trying to bar people of one race from marrying people of another race, or you're telling gay and lesbian Americans they cannot marry the person they love, but instead must enter into a substitution for marriage that has none of the legal force, rights, or benefits of marriage, either way, you are telling entire groups of people that marriage is a constitutional right only for some Americans, but not for all Americans. And the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids doing that.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Adoptive parent or step parent. There is no such thing as "unnatural parent" except in the tiny brains of blithering idiots."

Okay, that is total nonsense, but in the interests of advancing the discussion, such as it is, let's set it aside for a moment. You still have not told me, specifically, what a "natural" parent is, what a parent who is not a "natural" parent is, and why only the first kind of parent can exist in what you consider a real marriage.

Annoying Old Guy
What question is it you think I didn't answer?

This one.

You claim that churches won't be forced to perform same sex marriages, yet also that

Same-sex couples do have the right to have their relationships societally validated by the same institution that validates the relationships of opposite-sex couples.

For instance, churches.

You could have just scrolled up to find out, but as noted you seem to find reading other people's stuff tedious.

Beasts of England

Rather than take a more rigid approach to the maintenance of the nuclear family, we allowed our own 'freedoms" to override our responsibilities. There is less and less accountability today along with greater and greater dysfunction.

Responsibilities? Accountability? The stuff of dead white guys. C'mon - live a little!

Kathy Kattenburg

"Also I do not believe you really didn't know what that meant since I have been using it all along. You're just pretending its an unnatural term."

Okay, you've got me there. I do know what you mean by "natural" parents. You mean parents who are biologically their children's parents -- they got them by having sex with each other. But I'm not "pretending" that I think the opposite of "natural parent" is "unnatural parent." It actually and logically is. The word "natural" absolutely and inarguably implies the existence of things that are NOT natural. And if you look at the definition of "natural," it really is a very odd word to use to mean biological or birth parents.

I'm trying to get you to take responsibility for the implications of the language you use, because those implications are real, and they really hurt the feelings of real people. Adoptive parents don't want to be told they're not "natural" parents, and they have every right to feel that way.

I would also argue that it's probably in the interests of your own political ideology not to use language that implies adoptive parents are somehow not real parents, or legitimate parents, or as real or legitimate as biological parents. I mean, I'm assuming you're anti-abortion, and that you believe women should give up their babies for adoption rather than end their pregnancies. Regardless of the substantive merits of that position, if it IS your position, then it's exceedingly bizarre on your part to talk like you think adoptive parents are second best.

Kathy Kattenburg

" What question is it you think I didn't answer?

This one."

Okay. Now I understand what happened. I actually DID answer that question, in a long comment that answered a bunch of other questions, and I posted that comment, but it vanished from the site. I posted it twice, and both times it appeared to post, but when I refreshed the page, what I had posted was nowhere to be found -- even though other comments that I wrote and posted afterward DID show up.

I emailed Tom about this, and assured him that I was not accusing him of deleting the comment, I just wanted to know why he thought it wasn't there. So far, he has not responded to that email.

So that's the best I can tell you right now, and I'm sorry for the confusion.

Beasts of England

Marriage is a legal contract that unites two consenting adults in a contractual lifetime relationship.

Isn't defining the quantity of participants at 'two' arbitrary? Ergo, if you choose to say it's usually been two, then it's usually been a man and a woman.

Elucidate, please.

(And personally, I don't give a fig about gay marriage, but I once argued for a second, contemporaneous wife. Seriously.)

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

So no answer will be forthcoming on reconciling forced "societal validation" for same sex marriage while avoiding harm by not forcing societies to validate same sex marriage.

Kathy Kattenburg

"So no answer will be forthcoming on reconciling forced "societal validation" for same sex marriage while avoiding harm by not forcing societies to validate same sex marriage."

That's not the question I was asked to answer. I was asked to distinguish between societal validation and requiring religious institutions to perform gay marriages. I explained above what happened when I posted an answer to that question. Perhaps you can encourage Tom to answer my email. Other than that, there is really no more I can tell you.

boris

"I'm trying to get you to take responsibility for the implications of the language you use, because those implications are real, and they really hurt the feelings of real people."

If you think using the word "natural" requires somebody to take responsibiolity, what about this ...

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.
That's ugly and vile.

"Whether you're trying to bar people of one race from marrying people of another race, or you're telling gay and lesbian Americans ..."

I am not doing any of those things. And nobody here advocates stopping same sex couples from entering civil unions and trying to make children.

Kathy Kattenburg

If you think using the word "natural" requires somebody to take responsibiolity, what about this ...

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.

That's ugly and vile.

Yes, of course it's ugly and vile. That was my point. Those are among the arguments that opponents of interracial marriage made at the time of Loving v. Virginia, and before.

boris

"Those are among the arguments that opponents of interracial marriage made at the time of Loving v. Virginia, and before"

Pretty sure you made that up from your own littly potty mouth keyboard. But sure, try to claim natural parent is hurtful but spewing that crap is a public service. Pathetic.

boris

The very simple argument I have made here about preserving the traditional meaning of the word marraige is not one used to oppose interracial marriage, and could not be used in that fashion. In response to my statement to that effect KK finds it appropriate to concoct an ugly and vile litany of made up racist drivel. Why? To exhaustively list all the arguemts so readers could see that my argument did not apply? No pretense on that score.

My guess is in her tiny brain any support for the traditional definition is equivalent to the ugly vile racism she so easily and casually can summon from her own mind.

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.
It is up to the readers to decide if that is an informative history lesson or pure crap.

boris

Just to be clear about what my argument here has been ...

The kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents is special enough to have its own word.

That's it.

In order for society to give same sex couples the right to be called married what's necessary is to change the meaning of the word "married" to something like the definition of civil union. So why not just use the term "civil union" and leave the meaning of the word marriage alone?

boris

This is from a post at GayPatriot ...

Sex difference in short has long been inherent to the notion of marriage.

That said, I believe, states should — at minimum — recognize gay relationships as civil unions. And perhaps the ideal would be for the state to simply call monogamous relationships “civil unions” (for all people) and let churches, synagogues, private individuals, etc. call them marriage — or whatever they want.
Reasonable. I have made a similar suggestion on several occasions.

Kathy Kattenburg

"The kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents is special enough to have its own word."

What's that word? Just want to make sure I'm guessing correctly.

boris

The word is "blithering"

boris

Idiot

Kathy Kattenburg

"In response to my statement to that effect KK finds it appropriate to concoct an ugly and vile litany of made up racist drivel."

I didn't concoct it. Those were all real arguments made by real people against interracial marriage. I just posted a long piece providing the citations you should have looked up yourself before telling me you were "pretty sure" I made them up, but Tom deleted it again. He never replied to my email about the other post that vanished, so I am going to assume that he DID delete it.

Kathy Kattenburg

"n order for society to give same sex couples the right to be called married what's necessary is to change the meaning of the word "married" to something like the definition of civil union. So why not just use the term "civil union" and leave the meaning of the word marriage alone?"

If you change the meaning of the word "married" to the meaning that the term "civil union" has now, then the next part of your sentence, "and leave the meaning of the word marriage alone," makes no sense. If you change the meaning to the word "marriage," then how can you keep the meaning of the word "marriage"?

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to assert an idea that makes no sense.

Kathy Kattenburg

The word is "blithering"

Oh, okay! In that case, I am going to conclude that I am correct that the special word you have in mind for "The kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents" is "marriage." I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, since you weren't specifically saying the word. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that the word you had in mind was *not* marriage. Because that would make YOU a blithering idiot.

Which means, of course, that you are the blithering idiot. But I already knew that.

boris

"I didn't concoct it"

Yes you did. It was a KK first person rant putting yourself in the mind of stereotypical hate filled racist. So easy for you.

At 8:20PM yesterday, on this page, you wrote ... "There really isn't any argument you or others you and others have used ... that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage"

I disputed that which prompted your vile rant in response. Why? My argument is NOT among the disgusting things you wrote.

My guess, projection. Eexpressing your own feelings about people like Sarah Palin, GWB, Dr Ben Carson.

Kathy Kattenburg

"I disputed that which prompted your vile rant in response. Why? My argument is NOT among the disgusting things you wrote."

No, fool. You said I made up the arguments.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Yes you did. It was a KK first person rant putting yourself in the mind of stereotypical hate filled racist."

And here you are telling me I made up the arguments in the same comment you tell me you didn't say I made them up.

You're insane.

boris

"benefit of the doubt the word you had in mind was *not* marriage"

Talk about twisted.

So you're little post-modern trap failed. Boo Hoo.

boris

"You said I made up the arguments"

Go back to March 29 8:20 PM upthread. You wrote "There really isn't any argument you or others you and others have used ... that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage"

Which I disputed ... THEN you concocted the vile rant. Check it out.

Kathy Kattenburg

"THEN you concocted the vile rant."

And again, I did not "concoct the rant." I told you the arguments being made now against same-sex marriage are very similar and in some cases identical to the ones made against interracial marriage. You said I was wrong. So I gave you a sample of the kind of arguments that were made against interracial marriage, one of which was that such relationships are unnatural and disgusting. Those arguments WERE made against interracial marriage, and those arguments ARE made against same-sex marriage -- or, more precisely, against gay and lesbian people.

Kathy Kattenburg

AND, to reiterate, I posted three examples (and I could have posted dozens more) of real people who called interracial marriages unnatural, but that post vanished when Tom deleted it.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Talk about twisted."

Yeah, let's do talk about twisted, boris. Like how twisted a person would have to be to say that marriage should be defined only a mother and a father plus children that they created through sexual intercourse. I've never even heard the worst, most hateful homophobe say that even when parents are heterosexual, only heterosexual parents with biologically related children should be called married.

That's monstrous.

boris

"arguments being made now against same-sex marriage are very similar and in some cases identical to the ones made against interracial marriage."

No here's what you wrote (again) ""There really isn't any argument you and others have used ... that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage"

I disputed that I have made any such arguments, which prompted your channeling a stereotypical hateful racist and producing an ugly disgusting rant full of absurd arguments, historically discredited, none of which are similar to mine or anybody else here for that matter.

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.
I claim you did that because in your twisted worldview the argument I have made is just as bad. Evidence? At 12:01 you wrote ...

"how twisted a person would have to be to say that marriage should be defined only a mother and a father plus children that they created through sexual intercourse. I've never even heard the worst, most hateful homophobe say that even when parents are heterosexual, only heterosexual parents with biologically related children should be called married.

That's monstrous."

Which of course is ridiculous. People with children can marry, married couples can adopt, married couples can be childless. None of that changes the simple fact that opposite sex couples are the only group that can form the kind of nuclear family where children they make together are raised by their own natural parents. That is a simple fact and all I have said is it's special enough to have its own word.

What's really monstrous is how that provokes blithering idiots into hateful vapors and inspires injecting the kind of ugly disgusting garbage into any discussion on the topic.

boris

Amazing 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 inacurate 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.

Kathy Kattenburg

"""There really isn't any argument you and others have used ... that was not also used to oppose interracial marriage""

That's correct, and that's true. Nothing in that quote of mine contradicts my paraphrase of it just now. And nothing in that quote of mine suggests that you in particular have made ALL of the arguments made in the past against interracial marriage. "THERE REALLY ISN'T *ANY* ARGUMENT YOU AND *OTHERS* HAVE MADE...." And some of the arguments you made WERE used against interracial marriage.

"I disputed that I have made any such arguments"

Yes, and you were wrong. You did make some of the arguments that were also made against interracial marriage.

"...which prompted your channeling a stereotypical hateful racist and producing an ugly disgusting rant full of absurd arguments, historically discredited, none of which are similar to mine or anybody else
here for that matter.""

The sentiments I reproduced here are ugly and disgusting, and all of them were made at one time or another, repeatedly, against interracial marriage.

And I'm not certain what you mean by "historically discredited." If you mean that the merit of the arguments are discredited, well, of course they are. Loving v. Virginia was over 40 years ago. Interracial marriage is accepted now (except for a few holdouts who still pine for the Confederacy), so of course those arguments are discredited when they're applied to interracial marriages. But that does not change the fact that many of those same arguments are used now against same-sex marriage. The one about interracial marriage being "unnatural" is very much used now against same-sex marriage. The fact that you specifically did not use that particular word does not change the reality that many opponents of same-sex marriage DO use that word, not just to describe same-sex marriage, but also to describe gay and lesbian people themselves.

"People with children can marry, married couples can adopt, married couples can be childless. None of that changes the simple fact that opposite sex couples are the only group that can form the kind of nuclear family where children they make together are raised by their own natural parents. That is a simple fact and all I have said is it's special enough to have its own word."

Well no, as a matter of FACT, that is NOT *all* that you said. Quoting:

However, where society decides to give same sex couples the right to be called "married", the meaning of word "married" is changed to something like the definition of civil union. In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents.

The boldface is yours. Note and remember that (1) You used the word "natural parents" to mean "biological parents" or "birth parents," and that (2) I asked you to specify what that word was for that kind of family and you refused to tell me, so I conclude it was "marriage," and you refused to specify that because you knew how ridiculous it was.

So you are being untruthful and disingenuous now when you say adoptive families and blended families can also have parents who are married.

"None of that changes the simple fact that opposite sex couples are the only group that can form the kind of nuclear family where children they make together are raised by their own natural parents. That is a simple fact and all I have said is it's special enough to have its own word."

"Amazing 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 inacurate 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."

Well, that's exactly what you are implying when you use the term "natural parents." Everyone knows that "natural parents" means biological or birth parents. What you're being told is that the term "natural parents" insults parents who are not biologically related to their child or children, AND IT DOES. And the fact that you don't give a damn just shows that on this subject at least you are utterly contemptuous of everyone's experiences and feelings other than your own.

And here you say it again, even as you insist that you didn't say it.

Kathy Kattenburg

And here is the "It's not natural" argument right in your face:

One woman who has not “gone red” is Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart of east Cobb, although she’s aware of the movement.

“Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” Everhart said. “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”

http://www.mdjonline.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Cobb+sounds+off+as+Facebook+goes+red+in+support+of+gay+marriage%20&id=22108736

boris

"And nothing in that quote of mine suggests that you in particular have made ALL of the arguments made in the past against interracial marriage."

I haven't made ANY.

"Yes, and you were wrong. You did make some of the arguments that were also made against interracial marriage"

That is false.

"What you're being told is that the term "natural parents" insults parents who are not biologically related to their child or children, AND IT DOES."

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

"but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married"

You seem to imply something like that has been said here on this thread. As can be seen above what people say or write and what you think they mean are completely different. That is how you can take using the term "natural parents" and compare it to vile ugly racism ...

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.
Which so easily flows from the darkness of your own hate.

boris

I wrote the following ...

However, where society decides to give same sex couples the right to be called "married", the meaning of word "married" is changed to something like the definition of civil union. In which case we lose the word for the kind of nuclear family where any children are raised by their own natural parents.
Which is entirely consistent with this ...
People with children can marry, married couples can adopt, married couples can be childless. None of that changes the simple fact that opposite sex couples are the only group that can form the kind of nuclear family where children they make together are raised by their own natural parents. That is a simple fact and all I have said is it's special enough to have its own word.

I hesitate to suggest how KK manages to misread the first one, but I doubt she did so I won't.

So it's just more pomo crap from KK.

boris

Amazing 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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame