Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 13
 [ 254 posts ] 
Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Incidentally, among the numerous errors being construed of my position is the notion that I am 'against' marriage.

If someone believes I have said that, or it is my position, would they be so kind as to point to where I actually said it?

In much the same way as explaining something doesn't infer that you're justifying it, so criticizing something doesn't infer that you are against it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 10:45 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
MatthewLee wrote:Rhetorically that's wonderful.


Thank you.


MatthewLee wrote: It also means that you didn't understand my point.


Does it? Or does it suggest, as said, why the points being made become less relevant than the tone in which they're being made?


MatthewLee wrote: It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.


Such as?


For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall. There were a host of claims. Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.
Wed May 30, 2018 10:47 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.


I offered no legal definition of step-father.


MatthewLee wrote: There were a host of claims.


So list them.


MatthewLee wrote: Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.


Wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy

The legality of polygamy varies widely around the world. Polygamy is legal in 58 out of nearly 200 sovereign states...


Legal in more than 25% of the world by states.

It's polyandry that's illegal nearly everywhere, which should induce some thought as to the whys.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 10:50 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.


Comments like this could lead one to believe that you have a negative opinion of marriage. Or at the very least believe it to be irrelevant.
Wed May 30, 2018 10:55 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.


Comments like this could lead one to believe that you have a negative opinion of marriage. Or at the very least believe it to be irrelevant.



Not sure how you would take that as being of negative opinion of marriage: I am simply stating facts.

As far as I can see, I actually didn't express any opinion of marriage therein.

If you disagree, perhaps others could weigh in to share whether they think that the cited sentences connote a negative opinion of marriage, or in fact, any opinion at all.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 11:01 am
MatthewLeePosts: 111Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
MatthewLee wrote:For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.


I offered no legal definition of step-father.


MatthewLee wrote: There were a host of claims.


So list them.


MatthewLee wrote: Btw,not sure where the polygamy thing came from but its not legal in any state,and is illegal and criminal in half the world.


Wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy

The legality of polygamy varies widely around the world. Polygamy is legal in 58 out of nearly 200 sovereign states...


Legal in more than 25% of the world by states.

It's polyandry that's illegal nearly everywhere, which should induce some thought as to the whys.


Read your own source. It specifically shows map and says polygamy is illegal and criminal,here... And its half the world.

Also, my mistake, I thought,you meant,state as in territory of the US. That 25 percent is also Muslim largely.

I am not,going to list your claims. You made them and I challenged them. I will, at least say, you did make claims about the definition of father,and stepdad which contradict the definition of the word legal or otherwise and thentold me I was wrong when I correctd you. Is this incorrect?
Wed May 30, 2018 11:06 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:Read your own source.


I did... and I quoted the relevant excerpt.



MatthewLee wrote: It specifically shows map and says polygamy is illegal and criminal,here...


What's "here" got to do with it?

I don't use the USA as a yard-stick for anything, Matthew. I was never just talking about the USA, but was clearly talking about the world


MatthewLee wrote:And its half the world.


Well, about 70% odd of the world.


MatthewLee wrote:Also, my mistake, I thought,you meant,state as in territory of the US.


Fair enough, but no, whenever I use the word 'state' I mean it in terms of a polity, or nation. I also referred to the Leviathan earlier as a useful metaphor for the overwhelming power of the nation state.


MatthewLee wrote:That 25 percent is also Muslim largely.


And?

The interesting factor is rather that there are a number of Muslim states there which don't permit polygamy, which interestingly overlays pre-existing cultural traditions for the most part. Much of Africa was polygamous prior to the arrival of Islam, for example.


MatthewLee wrote:I am not,going to list your claims. You made them and I challenged them.


I still don't know which claims you have challenged because you declared

It also means that you made a bunch,of claims... about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.


So I can hardly be expected to respond with evidence to claims you haven't identified as not being supported.

Rest assured that I will happily provide citations for any claim of mine you wish to challenge, or I will withdraw them if I cannot.


MatthewLee wrote: I will, at least say, you did make claims about the definition of father,and stepdad which contradict the definition of the word legal or otherwise and thentold me I was wrong when I correctd you. Is this incorrect?


It is incorrect, yes.

You contend that I made claims about the legal definition of "step-father":

MatthewLee wrote:For starters the legal definition of stepfather, if I recall.


And I responded that I never offered any legal definition of step-father whatsoever, so if you wish to continue contending so, you're going to need to show where I supposedly did this.

You also attempted an argument by dictionary with me, but I haven't yet responded to that post largely on account of having been at work, but also because the post was full of nonsense like making arguments by dictionary and responding to it is going to perpetuate the same tone I am trying hard to convince you to abandon, but apparently failing.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 1:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:Rhetorically that's wonderful. It also means that you didn't understand my point. It also means that you made a bunch,of claims external to your relationship about law and national attitudes that you didn't support with evidence.



For clarity, you repeatedly use the pronoun 'it' there in a complicated fashion. That usage of the pronoun in such a fashion is termed a 'pleonastic pronoun' because it functions syntactically but doesn't appear to stand as a proxy for any noun - its meaning is not explicit.

Assuming 'it' means my wonderful rhetoric, then how does 'it' mean I made a bunch of claims about law and national attitudes that I didn't support with evidence?

I really don't grasp what you're trying to say.

But any which way, I accept the burden of proof, I just can't accept a scattershot version of it because that would require me to intuit which claims I made that you would like to see evidence for. That burden is on you, I am afraid.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 2:04 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2651Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:
Gnug215 wrote:To make a long story short:

Divorce sucks. Deadbeat dads suck. Bad moms suck. Dysfunctional parents suck. Difficult relationships suck. Single parenting (probably for most) sucks. People suck.

Marriage does not fix ANY of those.


An excellent series of points, all true. Marriage isn't meant to fix them. Marriage (in this case defined as civil marriage and not just lifetime pairing) is a contract. The purpose of a contract is enforceability. Marriage assumes enforcement of the provisions that:

1. Divorce should hurt because monogamy is supposed to be forever.

2. Deadbeat dads have to pay because they are contractually obligated.

3. Mom's have a legal responsibility of care enforceable by the state's interference in their lives and possible removal of the child for their own safety.

4. Dysfunctional parents also have a legal responsibility to provide a home free of conflict in which healthy children can grow enforceable by the state's interference...

5. Single parenting should suck less because the other parent, if they abandon their responsibility in the child rearing department, has to pay and pay a lot.

True marriage is the joining of two people for a lifetime relationship that may or may not include children but is assumed to include monogamy and to supersede selfishness but represent sacrifice and partnership in love and trust. Civil marriage is the contractual formalization of these relationships which special attention paid to protecting the states compelling interest which is child rearing. The community cannot be expected to monitor this and deal with divorces, break ups, abuse and tom-foolery. The state is set up to deal with stuff like this and contracts give it the authority to deal with these things. These are facts of Jurisprudence.



I mostly agree here. We could debate point 1 for a bit, but I don't think that's necessary.

The point I want to make is that with these points, I don't really see a big difference between a marriage and a non-married relationship.

Marriage cannot be expected to reign in the terrible behaviors of humans. So I think the purported sanctity of that institution is a misplaced religious relic, a tradition from a time where it was much more feasible and relevant.

The problems (and by that, I mean basically only how we best help out children) are not, I think, solved or even helped by marriage, and we should focus elsewhere.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Wed May 30, 2018 3:25 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Gnug215 wrote:Marriage cannot be expected to reign in the terrible behaviors of humans.


The oldest element is still present: to account for the ownership of goods (estate) so that they can be inherited by the appropriate parties. Other benefits accrued by modern states include joint income tax and exemption from inherited spousal estate, being able to sue a third party in the event of a wrongful death, spousal priority on guardianship or conservator roles particularly in the scenario of a debilitating disease or event, visitation rights in hospitals, jails and other government institutions, making decisions about burial and final arrangements, etc..

In reality though, none of these actually need to be limited to marriage; they could all be conferred on a couple who elect to have their union recognized by the state - and this is already the case in most modern, liberal states. All that really is necessary is a process to notify the state of the couple's intent, because the state actually doesn't (shouldn't) have any say in who can marry whom.

This last is actually a valid issue with respect to anyone arguing that the state confers legitimacy to a union via marriage recognition. Plenty of couples still alive today recall anti-miscegenation laws where the state decreed that citizens with more melanin in their skin couldn't marry citizens with less melanin in their skin. I assume no one here would argue that the state should still retain that power, and all would instead argue that any citizen should be able to marry any consenting adult that they please. In that case, it is not the state which confers legitimacy, rather it is the state's obligation to recognize the free choice of its citizens.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed May 30, 2018 4:18 pm
LawyerLeePosts: 2Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 12:42 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
Do you recognize the same (in parity) values inherent in states with polygamous marriages, with consequent state interests in said marriages?


No. It is my opinion that polygamous marriages are inherently harmful.

First, polygamous marriages are harmful to women in that polygamy is an institution rooted in patriarchy. Is it possible for women to have multiple husbands? Sure, but the overwhelming majority of polygamous marriages consist of men married to multiple women. Women in polygamous marriages are likely to experience incidents of domestic violence from both the husband and the other wives. Additionally, in polygamous marriages, there are bound to be elements of favoritism, opposition, and competition. Perhaps Hubby likes #3 and her children a little more than #1 and her children. Perhaps #3 and #1 hate each other and each other's kids. Maybe #2 lacks the ability to have children. There is an ever-present competition for the love of the husband. This can make their relationship significantly more adversarial than it is matrimonial.

Next, it is no secret that marital conflict is terrible for children. Witnessing domestic violence is terrible for children. It is harmful to all facets of their development. There are also concerns about the fluidity of the relationship in that the marriages don't typically take place all at the same time. In other words, the relationship is constantly subject to change at any moment. Children do not get what they need in terms of consistency and stability.

It is also important to consider that while there may be multiple wives and their children, there is only one husband. He may also be the sole financial provider for the family. He will need to speak himself terribly thin to meet the needs of the different family members. He must work more to provide for them financially. He must maintain a relationship with multiple wives and each individual child. He must also, if he wants a home without the conflicts described above, balance the the maintenance of those relationships in a way that does not make one or more wife or child feel inferior. He is only one man after all!

Lastly, the dissolution of the family unit, or even a part of it would create significantly more complications. Whether we're talking about divorce or a custody case for parents who are unmarried, there are a few things that need to be dealt with.
The first matter is to determine who will be the parent with decision-making authority in matters about the children (school, education, vaccinations, dance class or martial arts, etc. ad nauseum). Traditionally, decision-making power goes to one parent solely or both parents jointly. The next matters are to determine with whom the child/children will primarily reside and what rights of contact the non-custodial parent of the child will have. These issues are usually settled either by agreement or by an order as a result of a contested divorce or custody battle. These divorces/breakups are already emotionally complex, traumatic, expensive, and potentially harmful to all parties involved (especially children). What happens when you add a second, third, or even fourth "mommy" to consider in the equation? Should they be considered in the equation or should the divorce just be between the husband and the wife leaving the relationship? Do we need to determine what contact the other wives will get with the children after divorce? Do we need to factor in the harm that could occur to the children of the wives who are not leaving the marriage? There are so many vagueries here and I'm not even going to get into how in the world child support obligations would be determined and calculated.

Any values which can be said to be inherent in polygamous relationships are grossly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential for harm to the inviduals, the family unit, and society as a whole.
Thu May 31, 2018 2:42 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

A well-written response, thanks...

While I have a few reservations about what you've written, they pale in comparison to the main point... everything you wrote is equally true of monogamous marriage only magnified.


i) rooted in patriarchy
ii) marital conflict is terrible for children
iii) sole financial provider in traditional setup
iv) divorce sucks for everyone


But intriguingly, your position on monogamous marriages was about as far away as possible from your conclusion on polygamous marriages:

LawyerLee wrote:Any values which can be said to be inherent in polygamous relationships are grossly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential for harm to the inviduals, the family unit, and society as a whole.


versus

LawyerLee wrote:That being said, I believe, as does the legislature of the state in which I reside and practice that the union of two people joined in monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society, that the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in monogamous marriage.


My personal take on the contradiction there is that we humans have a tendency to believe that the way we do things is necessarily good, and yet find the barely different way other human groups do stuff utterly perplexing.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu May 31, 2018 2:58 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

While I am not sure quite why this thread has become wholly about marriage given its title, I think we're a bit too far along to worry about it now.

One positive component of marriage that I think is very well grounded in empirical data (and is both historical and cross-cultural) is that young (18-29) single men in a society tend to be one of the biggest threats to civil harmony in that society. They commit more crime, engage more in violent behavior, and murder at a higher proportion than other sectors.

Marriage, however, plays a domesticating role, perhaps refocusing their attention on material provision for their families.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu May 31, 2018 3:10 am
SparhafocPosts: 2204Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Edit: oh fudge it... the forum software had kittens with my reply. I'll try and edit it back in later!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:37 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 13
 [ 254 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
cron