[anarchism101]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Right, but for the full benefit in a child's life a father and mother are both needed yes?

What makes you think that? I'm not saying you're right or wrong but that's largely an arbitrary assumption. If we look at family models in different cultures through history, the nuclear family is quite a recent occurrence.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Rubbish. Considered by whom? I'm sure the couples considered it marriage, and changing a law is unlikely to change the viewpoint of the average person - they will continue to think it either is or isn't a marriage, depending on their feelings, regardless of what the law says. In any case, the post I was referring to was talking about the natural evolution of language, not marriage specifically.

The general public did not consider interracial couples to be legitimate or moral, and therefore said that they couldn't be 'married'. Maybe the couples themselves did, but thats not the point we aren't talking about the couples we are talking about the broad use of a word. The feelings of the populace, change with the law. The law is both a reflection and influence on morality and thereby use of words such as 'marriage'. I addressed the natural evolution of language by citing and example with the word marriage....or does the evolution of the word marriage all of sudden not count as an example of language?

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
The general public did not consider interracial couples to be legitimate or moral, and therefore said that they couldn't be 'married'. Maybe the couples themselves did, but thats not the point we aren't talking about the couples we are talking about the broad use of a word. The feelings of the populace, change with the law. The law is both a reflection and influence on morality and thereby use of words such as 'marriage'. I addressed the natural evolution of language by citing and example with the word marriage....or does the evolution of the word marriage all of sudden not count as an example of language?

Firstly, if the general public didn't consider it legitimate or moral, they would almost certainly not have done after the law was changed. Attitudes evolve, as well as language, and to say that changes to attitude are led by changing legislation is daft. Secondly, law is broadly meant to represent the opinion of the general public, so if it was broadly considered immoral changing the law was inappropriate at that time. Law should be influenced by public opinion, not the other way round. In the same way language should be influenced by the public, rather than by law.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
Firstly, if the general public didn't consider it legitimate or moral, they would almost certainly not have done after the law was changed. Attitudes evolve, as well as language, and to say that changes to attitude are led by changing legislation is daft. Secondly, law is broadly meant to represent the opinion of the general public, so if it was broadly considered immoral changing the law was inappropriate at that time. Law should be influenced by public opinion, not the other way round. In the same way language should be influenced by the public, rather than by law.

Firstly the general public did not like the idea of interracial marriages however after the law was passed in 1967 they didnt really have a choice and public opinion changed on the subject over time. But without the legalization of interracial marriage it does not seem that it would have become as accepted as it has. This isn't really debatable. That lawsuit (Loving v. Virginia) was a landmark case for the acceptance of interracial marriage. To say otherwise is just ignorant.

To address your second point laws are meant to protect the citizens of a country, state, etc. laws should protect all it's citizens equally and to leave a minority groups rights up to the majority is called tyranny of the majority. Changing the law is appropriate to treat citizens fairly and justly and to help away public opinion. What reason can you give that it should not? Why can't public opinion and language be influenced by law? Or why shouldn't they be?



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No, same sex parents are just as good, and in some cases better.

Well i don't know about you but i'd rather have 2 parents of the opposite sex who don't both act the same. A gay man cannot substitute a mother. That's final.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Well i don't know about you but i'd rather have 2 parents of the opposite sex who don't both act the same. A gay man cannot substitute a mother. That's final.

There have been countless studies showing that you don't need both a mother and a father at all. Same sex parents are just as good, and actually better sometimes.
People don't act the same just because they are the same sex it's a really odd thing to say.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by anarchism101)
What makes you think that? I'm not saying you're right or wrong but that's largely an arbitrary assumption. If we look at family models in different cultures through history, the nuclear family is quite a recent occurrence.

All i'm saying is that a gay man cannot replace the nurturing characteristics of a mother. They can't breastfeed either. Breastfeeding is also important for babies as it offers many benefits.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
There have been countless studies showing that you don't need both a mother and a father at all. Same sex parents are just as good, and actually better sometimes.
People don't act the same just because they are the same sex it's a really odd thing to say.

Same sex parents will never be better. Esp. for babies who need breastfeeding, something gay men cannot do.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Firstly the general public did not like the idea of interracial marriages however after the law was passed in 1967 they didnt really have a choice and public opinion changed on the subject over time. But without the legalization of interracial marriage it does not seem that it would have become as accepted as it has. This isn't really debatable. That lawsuit (Loving v. Virginia) was a landmark case for the acceptance of interracial marriage. To say otherwise is just ignorant.

To address your second point laws are meant to protect the citizens of a country, state, etc. laws should protect all it's citizens equally and to leave a minority groups rights up to the majority is called tyranny of the majority. Changing the law is appropriate to treat citizens fairly and justly and to help away public opinion. What reason can you give that it should not? Why can't public opinion and language be influenced by law? Or why shouldn't they be?



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I've skim read the case you mention and can't see anything to suggest it changed opinion - clearly there was significant variation in opinion between states (hardly novel in the US), hence the marriage being legal in some states but not in others. The wiki article has an interesting comment from the NY Court Of Appeal on the relevance of that case to same sex marriage: "[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Second point - by extension, is it unreasonable to tyrannise criminals? The majority consider their acts unacceptable, they clearly do not, and are punished. As a society we have reached the conclusion that race, sexuality, gender etc. should not disadvantage a person, but that is a majority opinion. Let's face it, slavery didn't end because the slaves didn't like it! It was a shift in opinion away from treating humans as slaves. Additionally, if law does not reflect the opinion of the majority, who decides what it should be? The notion that a select group of people should be able to dictate morality to the majority is just repugnant. In any case, there is no tyranny here - gay couples have the same legal rights as married couples, the difference is simply that the legal term applied is different. Frankly, it seems likely that if people had simply gone about quietly referring to a civil partnership as a marriage it would have, in time, become accepted. Instead, it seems that making a big deal out of the legal distinction it will probably polarise people and the idea will take longer to become accepted.

Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I still don't see the whole issue as any more than legal semantics.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Same sex parents will never be better. Esp. for babies who need breastfeeding, something gay men cannot do.

Many babies can't breastfeed for plenty of reasons, even when they have opposite sex parents. But I'm talking about parenting in general.
You stating that they "will never be better" doesn't disprove all of the studies and evidence to the contrary. If you have some actual evidence to present, please feel free, otherwise you are wrong.

[Xotol]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Well i don't know about you but i'd rather have 2 parents of the opposite sex who don't both act the same. A gay man cannot substitute a mother. That's final.

Assertion without a shred of evidence. You can't just spam this statement if you have zero credible reasoning to support it.

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
All i'm saying is that a gay man cannot replace the nurturing characteristics of a mother. They can't breastfeed either. Breastfeeding is also important for babies as it offers many benefits.

'Nurturing characteristics' is extremely vague especially when the evidence doesn't support it, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Breastfeeding isn't that difficult to circumvent with breastmilk donations.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
I've skim read the case you mention and can't see anything to suggest it changed opinion - clearly there was significant variation in opinion between states (hardly novel in the US), hence the marriage being legal in some states but not in others.

When the law was passed there was a 73% disapproval rating by the public. Not all that varying. And clearly the law influenced the evolution of opinion, as not long after, interracial marriage is now hardly a big deal at all. It won't change it completely, but that almost never happens in any case.

The wiki article has an interesting comment from the NY Court Of Appeal on the relevance of that case to same sex marriage: "[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

This is false. Historically there have been plenty of societies which had no problem with same-sex relations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

Second point - by extension, is it unreasonable to tyrannise criminals? The majority consider their acts unacceptable, they clearly do not, and are punished. As a society we have reached the conclusion that race, sexuality, gender etc. should not disadvantage a person, but that is a majority opinion. Let's face it, slavery didn't end because the slaves didn't like it! It was a shift in opinion away from treating humans as slaves. Additionally, if law does not reflect the opinion of the majority, who decides what it should be? The notion that a select group of people should be able to dictate morality to the majority is just repugnant. In any case, there is no tyranny here - gay couples have the same legal rights as married couples, the difference is simply that the legal term applied is different. Frankly, it seems likely that if people had simply gone about quietly referring to a civil partnership as a marriage it would have, in time, become accepted. Instead, it seems that making a big deal out of the legal distinction it will probably polarise people and the idea will take longer to become accepted.

1. Criminals arent tyrannized. They have infringed upon others' rights and thereby should be punished, whereas those who are merely, a woman, or of a specific ethnicity, or sexual orientation have not. If you can't tell the difference then I think this discussion is over.

2. Those characteristics listed were not always considered to be treated equal and most of the time they were opposed by the majority of citizens. Hence legislation is required to protect them from the majority. This is basic political theory, and social justice...

3. Nobody said a select group of people should be able to dictate morality. The public has the right to vote on laws, etc. however they do not have the right to vote on someone elses rights. It is a major distinction.

4. There is tyranny here. Homosexuals have been unjustly excluded from an institution. The government has no right to discriminate and segregate an entire group of people merely because of their sexual orientation. A similar case would be in the US when African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. They got the same ride, same air conditioning, etc. but were segregated to the back. Do you think that wasn't tyranny? They should have had access to the entire bus like everyone else. So should homosexuals have access to marriage like everyone else.

5. Been accepted in what way? People don't refer to gay couples as 'husband' or 'wives' but as partners. They are committed, not married. These things were institutionalized, and wouldn't legally change unless the change was called for. And many people were and are uncomfortable calling homosexual couples husbands or wives because it implies they are married when they aren't. There is no reason to believe that would have changed, historically speaking unless fought for change is very rare to come about.

Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I still don't see the whole issue as any more than legal semantics.

See it how you wish, however homosexuals are the ones experiencing the 'semantics' and they have been excluded from an federal institution for no other reason than their sexual orientation. That is called segregation, and discrimination, two things which the government has no right to do.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Well i don't know about you but i'd rather have 2 parents of the opposite sex who don't both act the same. A gay man cannot substitute a mother. That's final.

I would agree that it's 'final', but you're wrong. Psychological research says you're wrong. Your own feeling as someone raised by straight parents does not overrule that.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Same sex parents will never be better. Esp. for babies who need breastfeeding, something gay men cannot do.

Same sex parents are sometimes better, oh look, you're wrong again.
I couldn't breastfeed when I was little because my mum was ill, I've turned out fine. Also, you seem to think that only gay men exist, gay women also exist.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Xotol)
Nurturing characteristics' is extremely vague especially when the evidence doesn't support it, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Breastfeeding isn't that difficult to circumvent with breastmilk donations.

It could also be possible that if the surrogate mother (if one was used of course, he seems to keep ignoring lesbians when making his argument) was a very close friend she could breastfeed the child and they could also bottle some of her breastmilk for when she's not there.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Same sex parents will never be better. Esp. for babies who need breastfeeding, something gay men cannot do.

And for all we know there might be plenty of things that gay men can do that heterosexual couples can't. And there are loads of things that are better for child-rearing that the state doesn't get involved in, so why should it here?