Rawls's Profile

Rawls
Name:
Rawls
Joined:
Oct 20, 2012

Recent Comments

Rawls

C. U. Douglas

Rawls

...

Marriage is a civilizing factor, and it will be taken up by more citizens. SSM is a conservative win.

Side note: I remain unconvinced of the latter. This assumes that the civilizing nature of marriage is entirely or almost entirely dependent on its person-to-person contractual nature. That is: It doesn't matter who enters this contractual union, the nature of the union itself. But that only makes sense if a given man is perfectly equivalent to a given woman. However there's reason to believe there are differences between genders that transcends the physical. If this is true, then homosexual unions are not the same as heterosexual.

There's a lot involved that we tend to gloss over in favor of personal preferences.

...

I reiterate:

Even conceding your point, that men and women are different—and that heterosexual unions give children better upbringings than homosexual unions—it still makes sense to allow and encourage SSM because it is still better than single parenthood or orphanages.

Allowing SSM will result in more people signing onto the responsibilities that come with a marriage contract, including those that pertain to two-parent child-rearing.

Rawls
Salvatore Padula: Rawls- I don't think that rational basis is really the issue in same sex couples raising children. Gay couples are already allowed to adopt and if the children in question are biologically either of the partners' the standard of review for any law attempting to restrict their parental rights would be higher. While the question of gay marriage has been formally addressed in terms of rational basis review, in practice it has been subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny. If Prop 8 is held unconstitutional I think it will likely be on the basis of intermediate or strict scrutiny review. · 4 minutes ago

Precisely!

Prop 8 doesn't even pass the least rigorous review (rational basis). Subjected to heightened review (intermediate or strict scrutiny), it doesn't stand a chance. The government has no compelling interest in examining gender when issuing marriage licenses.

If Prop 8 is struck down everybody wins. The constitution is upheld, liberty is expanded, families win, and kids win. Marriage is a civilizing factor, and it will be taken up by more citizens. SSM is a conservative win.

Rawls

Mark Kowalewski:

 Rawls, I wouldn't place infertile people and homosexuals in the same category, but I would agree that being infertile is a flaw.

No problem. Here's the argument again discussing only homosexuals:

Parenting studies from both sides of the debate are trying to establish a rational basis for granting or denying these individuals—or couples comprised of these individuals—the right to raise children (and, although it's a somewhat separate argument, committing to their couple-hood and parenthood via marriage).

However, even if a study showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that same-sex couples raised children more poorly than opposite-sex couples on average, my guess is that they would still be proven to raise them better than a single parent (or orphanage). Thus, the gov would actually have a rational basis to ALLOW homosexual parentage and marriage, since this gives more kids a better chance at success.

(Opening the rational basis argument wider, the gov has more rational basis to deny single people, convicted criminals, drug addicts, etc., the right to parentage than they ever would same-sex couples.)

Rawls

Mark Kowalewski

In other words, it is normal in nature that sometimes things will end up flawed... either way, for whatever reason, there was a curve ball thrown into the original intent.

By your logic, "curve balls" would include homosexuals and infertile people.

Parenting studies from both sides of the debate are trying to establish a rational basis for granting or denying these individuals—or couples comprised of these individuals—the right to raise children (and, although it's a somewhat separate argument, committing to their couple-hood and parenthood via marriage).

However, even if a study showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that same-sex or infertile couples raised children more poorly than opposite-sex couples on average, my guess is that they would still be proven to raise them better than a single parent (or orphanage). Thus, the gov would actually have a rational basis to ALLOW homosexual parentage and marriage, since this gives more kids a better chance at success.

(Opening the rational basis argument wider, the gov has more rational basis to deny single people, convicted criminals, drug addicts, etc., the right to parentage than they ever would same-sex or infertile opposite sex couples.)

Rawls
Jamie Lockett: I'm rather disappointed that the vast majority of responses have boiled down to ad hominem attacks against "studies" or Universities in general. I'm quite sure that had such a study shown negative effects for children raised by same-sex couples many of you would be trumpeting its results.
I expected more from the Ricochet crowd.   · 2 hours ago

Could not agree more.

Rawls

If studies show that kids of couples over 40 do worse than those of couples under 40 should we bar them from marriage licenses?

Rawls

DrewInWisconsin

Salvatore Padula

DrewInWisconsin

Salvatore Padula

What sort of argument should be used to "prove" a moral issue? Presumably you have some other criteria that should be used. What are they?

The point is that using empirical data to prove that same-sex marriage is okey-dokey is like writing a song that will build a house.

But that doesn't answer my question. If empirical data are irrelevant to questions of morality, what sort of arguments are relevant?
Surely you have some substitute for empiricism. I would just like to know what it is.

It depends on the issue. But in questions of morality, I look to scripture. I suppose this makes me a slope-headed knuckle-dragger from flyover county, but I guess I don't care anymore. Do your worst. · 6 hours ago

I too always turn to the Koran.

Rawls

Mark Kowalewski:

Rawls, If I saw a child with down syndrome, would I consider this normal? No. Less than 5% of the pop. has down syndrome. If I saw a child with cerebral palsy, would I consider this normal? No. Less than 5% has cerebral palsy. How about autism? I would consider it disordered. Again, less than 5%. How about the South African woman track star Caster Semenya that has both male and female sex organs? Normal? I don't think so. And then of coarse we have a different variation of that....a male working behind the Starbucks counter with pink fingernail polish, extra tight jeans, spruced up hair with frosted tips, prancing around with a very high voice making a cappuccino. People can call me hateful all day and all night, but it will not sway me from what my senses observe about this particular person....that something is not right. Less than  5% of the population claim homosexuality. Since studies on this issue are so corruptable, I'm forced to rely on my own observations.

These 5% frequencies exist as a normal, predictable part of a data set. Worded differently: A 5% frequency is the natural norm.

Edited on June 7, 2013 at 4:18am
Rawls

DrewInWisconsin

Rawls

DrewInWisconsin

Homosexuality is normal. Occurs in most mammals, at varying but consistent frequencies.

Animals are also known to eat their young. Should we do that, too, just because we see it in the animal kingdom?

Obviously.

Your argument has an element of the "appeal to nature" fallacy in it. · 0 minutes ago

Hahaha, thank god, someone on this thread finally understands logical fallacy! Now if I could only get our sarcasm detection up...

Edited on June 6, 2013 at 8:19pm
Rawls

Donald Todd:Rawls: #30 "Homosexuality is normal. Occurs in most mammals, at varying (across species) but consistent frequencies."

Given that about 1.9 percent of the male population of the US is homosexual, normal does not seem the appropriate word for this occurrence.

Given that about 1.9 percent of the female population of the US is homosexual, normal does not seem the appropriate word for this occurrence.

Given that under normal conditions, homosexuals do not propagate (eg, have children), normal does not seem the appropriate word for this occurrence.

Try again? · 3 minutes ago

You are incorrectly conflating "majority" with "normal."

Normal/natural simply refers to anything that occurs with some measure of predictability or regularity, it does not assert any majority/minority status as compared to other phenomena.

Edited on June 6, 2013 at 8:13pm
Rawls

I'm a conservative, and you know what I hate? Universities. "Science." Liberties like freedom to marry a consenting adult of the same gender. Hard working immigrants. Birth control. The working poor.

Why wont anyone vote for me? I'm totally appealing.

Rawls

DrewInWisconsin

Rawls

Homosexuality is normal. Occurs in most mammals, at varying but consistent frequencies.

Animals are also known to eat their young. Should we do that, too, just because we see it in the animal kingdom? · 1 minute ago

Obviously.

Rawls

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

Mike Hinton

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: It would be really weird, considering the gazillions of studies showing that adopted children have more problems than biological children, how children with sperm-selling fathers report serious trouble coming to terms with the circumstances of their conception as well as just the problems associated with absence of fathers or mothers from the home, but ok. · 3 minutes ago

That could be explained at least partially by genetics. If the adopted children are more likely to come from less than stellar parents, those effects are still going to be there when raised by adoptive parents. · 1 hour ago

Well, point being that same sex couples don't procreate their own children. They either use sperm-selling fathers or ovary-bought mothers or adoption. And all lack mothers or fathers in the home. So it would be really really fascinating if all the problems associated with those non-natural families would disappear magically.

Your argument has an element of the "appeal to nature" fallacy in it.

Rawls
Mark Kowalewski: With the amount of money backing the homosexual community, and a past that already involves corrupt studies to portray to the people that homosexuality is very normal, it would be almost impossible to trust any study on the subject. I want full background information on all those involved in running the study...to include bank account info. · 4 hours ago

Homosexuality is normal. Occurs in most mammals, at varying (across species) but consistent frequencies.

Edited on June 6, 2013 at 7:41pm
Rawls

Copperfield: Well no.  Young people are idiots.  It's a gross oversimplification and there are some stellar young people here on Ricochet, but in general, they're mostly uninformed (as I was), highly susceptible to manipulation, but terribly judgmental about what little they do know (Reagan; "our liberal friends aren't stupid, they just know so much that isn't so").  Anything with an R by it is evil.  We saw it in the last election... college educated young people who couldn't find jobs commensurate with their educations, enthusiastically pulled the D lever in the voting booth, felt morally superior, then went back and clocked in at The Gap. 

They say they support these reforms in surveys, but refuse to vote for anyone who actually wants to tackle them because that might mean (heaven forbid...) they would have to vote for someone who might have an R by their name, might be pro-life (bible-thumper!), might have reservations about gay marriage (bigot!), might want to cut taxes (for the rich!), or who question the efficacy of regulation (let the corporations rape the environment!).  Again, it's simplistic, but there it is.

So your solution is...?

Rawls

From Politico:

Gay marriage: “On the ‘open-minded’ issue … [w]e will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table.”

Hispanics: “Latino voters … tend to think the GOP couldn’t care less about them.”

Perception of the party’s economic stance: “We’ve become the party that will pat you on your back when you make it, but won’t offer you a hand to help you get there.”

Big reason for the image problem: The “outrageous statements made by errant Republican voices.”

Words that up-for-grabs voters associate with the GOP: “The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

...

Republicans need to avoid allowing the abortion debate to be “conflated” with debates over contraception, rape and Planned Parenthood, the report recommended, though the party needn’t alter its stance on the issue of abortion itself.

The CRNC’s polls found that 54 percent of young voters said “taxes should go up on the wealthy” while only 3 percent said “taxes should be cut for the wealthy.” Bashing Big Gov also didn’t play well and was even damaging, according to some of the focus groups...

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In