My continued thanks to @SearchCz @ActivistDalek @NotGayDalek on their patience and my apologies for not replying more quickly.
@SearchCz commented on this previous entry. You can see his comments at the bottom of the link.
However, it shouldn't take a study. Some things should be obvious, such as "mothers and fathers are different" and all other things being equal, a child benefits from having both raising them.
You and I agree that marriage is something and not other things. We disagree on where there demarcation is. I have maintained that "the right to marry" in a legal and social sense has always been about an individual uniting with someone of the other sex, so that saying a man has a right to marry a man makes as much sense is saying a man has a right to a square circle. Yes, I think a man has a right to freedom of association, which includes sharing his life with another man in whatever form they want, but whatever it is, it isn't marriage. This, however, strays from the central issue at hand about state licensing.
Clearly, men and women are going to continue to get together and make babies. Will our public policies encourage of discourage them from doing so within marriage and raising those children together?
Yes, there are single parent situations, adoptions, and stepparent situations, but what is the natural situation, and what is best? I grew up with my genes and certain other inherited biological elements. It is of some benefit for my son to grow up with me for that reason alone. I've been there, done that. There are some awesome stepparents out there, and God bless them, but statistically speaking, minor children are better off with their biological parents together, and if that isn't going to happen, without their parents bringing their new lovers into (and often out of) the child's life until the child is grown.
When it comes to parenting, public policy should encourage men and women marry in order to have and raise children. Yes, there will be other situations, but what should be encouraged?
On to @NotGayDalek:
@SearchCz commented on this previous entry. You can see his comments at the bottom of the link.
Let me try to sort out this confusion re: *throuples*, and why marriage law should only apply to couples. This is LESS a question of whether or not *throuples* have rights, and MORE a question of what marriage is and isn't (particularly based on the public's interest in the institution).The common argument, to which I subscribe, is that the state has more of an interest in bride+groom unions because as a group, as a rule, and in general, sex-integrated unions are the kind of pairing that naturally create new dependent citizens, even if not all do. Throupling is either ineffective (only one sex) or superfluous (only one member of each sex is needed). However, if state marriage licensing is not about society’s interest in integrating the sexes and raising the next generation, but instead about the attractions of adults, then it doesn't matter what kind of parents throuples make. I have heard many times in the fight for "marriage equality" (perhaps not from @SearchCz – I don’t recall) that "marriage isn't about children" and "They are consenting adults, how does it hurt anybody?" If those statements are true, they apply to throuples as well.
You've repeatedly pointed out how children are an integral part of our understanding of what marriage is - particularly the public interest in how children are raised. This is YOUR argument, that raising children has something to do with marriage.
#1) We have evidence showing that same-sex parents work out as well (or better) for kids as opposite-sex parents.No, we don’t. There has been no study indicating this done with a large enough sample size comparing apple to apples, which in this case would mean things like comparing adoptive same-sex couples with adoptive both-sexes couples with similar socio-economic status, etc. and same-sex couples where one adult is a biological parent and the child was conceived intentionally with both-sexes couples of the same situation.
However, it shouldn't take a study. Some things should be obvious, such as "mothers and fathers are different" and all other things being equal, a child benefits from having both raising them.
Likewise marriage. It is a *thing* to which we have a right. So when we start talking about whether or not *throuples* have a "right" to marriage, we can't disregard what that marriage *thing* is and isn't. Legally, marriage is reciprocally exclusive when considering shared property, pensions, authority to make decisions for the other. ( These are some of the things a COUPLE can do that a *THROUPLE* cannot )However, people can legally marry and have paperwork (prenuptial agreements and the like) that state otherwise.
You and I agree that marriage is something and not other things. We disagree on where there demarcation is. I have maintained that "the right to marry" in a legal and social sense has always been about an individual uniting with someone of the other sex, so that saying a man has a right to marry a man makes as much sense is saying a man has a right to a square circle. Yes, I think a man has a right to freedom of association, which includes sharing his life with another man in whatever form they want, but whatever it is, it isn't marriage. This, however, strays from the central issue at hand about state licensing.
And, if I can offer another analogy: consider a two-seater sports car. Does a *throuple* have a "right" to drive one? It doesn't matter, that two-seater is made to safely accommodate two people and NOT three or more. (In fact, only one person at a time can drive it).Imagine that sports car is constructed around the body configurations of one man and one woman so that two men couldn't fit or two women couldn't fit. You want the car reconfigured. Why can't it be reconfigured in a way that allows more people?
But same-sex couples don't require that any new protections be invented, only that they have access to the existing protections available to others.There was never a right to get a marriage license with someone of the same sex before – not for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Isn't that a new protection? When women were no longer denied their right to vote, it was to vote just like men did. Voting itself was not changed to accommodate women.
Can you explain why the state's interest in how children are raised ought to be concerned with whether or not the adults in question produced the children in question? Keep in mind that the state ALREADY freely sanctions 2nd marriages in which children will be raised by a biological parent and a step-parent.Parents are naturally in possession of their biological children. If they neglect/abandon those children, they are prosecuted. If they want to raise their children but are unfit, the state has to have justification and follow procedures to remove the children from their custody. If the parents want to give their children away, they have to do so through formal adoption (although some places allow newborns to be "safely surrendered"). In the event of a divorce or other break-up, parental rights are sorted out by legal authorities. Adopting official public policy that logically indicates that marriage, reproduction, and parenting are not related or diminishes the connection between them carries certain risks. For example, diminishing the general connection between parent and biological child as a legal consideration.
Clearly, men and women are going to continue to get together and make babies. Will our public policies encourage of discourage them from doing so within marriage and raising those children together?
Yes, there are single parent situations, adoptions, and stepparent situations, but what is the natural situation, and what is best? I grew up with my genes and certain other inherited biological elements. It is of some benefit for my son to grow up with me for that reason alone. I've been there, done that. There are some awesome stepparents out there, and God bless them, but statistically speaking, minor children are better off with their biological parents together, and if that isn't going to happen, without their parents bringing their new lovers into (and often out of) the child's life until the child is grown.
When it comes to parenting, public policy should encourage men and women marry in order to have and raise children. Yes, there will be other situations, but what should be encouraged?
Who pressured Eich to resign? on Life on TwitterI saw a lot of noise being made by marriage neutering advocates targeting Mozilla because of Eich. Clearly, Mozilla was going to be the target of organized actions to ruin the business.
On to @NotGayDalek:
1.) BRIDELESS AND GROOMLESS MARRIAGES ARE NOT PROPOSED. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A BRIDE, GROOM OR BOTHA bride is a woman, a groom is a man. So yes, without both a man and a woman, one is missing.
2.) “THROUPLES” IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: A LOGICAL FALLACY, AND FEAR MONGERINGRather than make a transcript, I’ll note that this is addressed here.
3.) THE ONLY “UNDUE DISENFRANCHISEMENT” THAT IS OCCURRING IS BANNING PEOPLE FROM MARRIAGE.The disenfranchisement is that the licenses are issued on behalf of the people, and in many places, the people have voted to retain the bride+groom requirement in that licensing, only to have judges, often federal judges (despite SCOTUS indicating it was a state matter) overturn their votes. The bride+groom requirement allows access to everyone, both men and women, and as such does not violate the Constitution, despite creative pronouncements to the contrary. Notice that different states have different restrictions on the ages of the individuals and how closely they can be related, so states are allowed to implement different restrictions even though such restrictions are based on personal characteristics with which the individuals were born. In other words, even though they were "born that way" they are still denied access to getting a marriage license together.
