Line between bigotry and traditional values.

[Aeson]

Blue Jays and Cardinals ... don't intermingle.

Only because one is American and one is National...

[Ben Kenobi]

Then how is it bigotry to argue that the state does have a role in marriage, and that marriage has a specific purpose to the state, in making sure kiddos have a mom and dad to look after them?

[Aeson]

Then how is it bigotry to argue that the state does have a role in marriage, and that marriage has a specific purpose to the state, in making sure kiddos have a mom and dad to look after them?

It's not bigoted to claim that marriage is to conceive children. It's just ignorance of the reality of marriage, conception, childbirth, and what constitutes a healthy home environment.

In your ****ed up world 2 men or 2 women (or God forbid... a widow!) who love their children and treat them as best they can can't give them as good a home as some drunk man who beats his wife and molests his children. But whatever floats your boat dude...

[Ben Kenobi]

In your ****ed up world 2 men or 2 women who love their children and treat them as best they can can't give them as good a home as some drunk man who beats his wife and molests his children. But whatever floats your boat dude

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that on average (there's that phrase again), the best outcome for kids is to be raised by mom and dad who are married to each other. You aren't stupid, Aeson. You make decisions for yourself based on what you believe will give you the best outcome.

The state penalizing decisions which are harmful to the overall well being of children, is part of the job of the state. If the state were to incentivize bad choices (as they often do), then they get the results that they do not want. It's because the state does incentivize these things that we see so many single moms out there.

Yes, single moms can and do a great job with their kids. But if you've got a choice between Joe or Dom Dimaggio for an at-bat, what's the rational choice?

[Aeson]

I'm saying that on average (there's that phrase again), the best outcome for kids is to be raised by mom and dad who are married to each other.

Do you have a hearing disability? Well averages say that your children would have increased chances of having hearing problems. We can't let that happen. Nevermind that your eardrum was burst when you tried to fit a dildo in there, we only care about AVERAGES. And the average person with hearing disability is more likely to have children with hearing disabilities than a person without hearing disability.

Sorry, but you need to be neutered. Averages, you know? AVERAGES!

(next up, hair color. it's not bigotry because AVERAGES!!)

You make decisions for yourself based on what you believe will give you the best outcome.

Exactly! Like I don't go around trying to tell other people who they can or can't marry, or if they can or can't have children... because I don't want to be a bigot.

The state penalizing decisions which are harmful to the overall well being of children, is part of the job of the state.

I think we can all agree children shouldn't be allowed near priests.[/asher]

Yes, single moms can and do a great job with their kids. But if you've got a choice between Joe or Dom Dimaggio for an at-bat, what's the rational choice?

The rational choice is to allow her to decide who the **** she wants to be with (if anyone).

[Egbert]

Do you have a hearing disability? Well averages say that your children would have increased chances of having hearing problems. We can't let that happen. Nevermind that your eardrum was burst when you tried to fit a dildo in there, we only care about AVERAGES. And the average person with hearing disability is more likely to have children with hearing disabilities than a person without hearing disability.

I can't see how bursting your own eardrum with a dildo increases your chances of having children with hearing disabilities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you have a hearing disability? Well averages say that your children would have increased chances of having hearing problems.

Yes, I do, and yes, it's a significant issue. I believe it's only fair for anyone who I am close to, to understand what they are getting themselves into. It's a dominant condition, and a 50 percent chance that any child or children I do have will also have my hearing impairment.

And the average person with hearing disability is more likely to have children with hearing disabilities than a person without hearing disability.

Well in this case, the question becomes, "should the state decide who can or cannot have children with one another." And yes, in years past, the decision has been to sterilize folks to confine disabilities from the population.

Exactly! Like I don't go around trying to tell other people who they can or can't marry, or if they can or can't have children... because I don't want to be a bigot.

So why shouldn't I be allowed to marry as many people as I want?

I think we can all agree children shouldn't be allowed near priests.

Child abuse is more likely in public schools.

The rational choice is to allow her to decide who the **** she wants to be with (if anyone).

The point being that we do not and should not incentivize folks to make bad decisions for them and their families. Such as giving preferential benefits to single moms irrespective of need.

[Jon Miller]

Yes it is.

Insisting upon an (implied) second-class type of union - which is marriage in all but name - for homosexuals is bigotry just as insisting upon a special type of dress for Jews is anti-Semitism. Yes I went there.

You saying that marriage is between two people but not between a person and their progeny is bigotry. You insist on a special type relationship (called father and son, if they are both male) is bigoted, why are you so biased?

JM

[MikeH]

There's also "parent and child".

So father and son is the name for an all male parent child relationship. But you also have Father and Daughter, Mother and Son..

So why can't it be called marriage, and you have some combination of Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife. Father and Father, Mother and Mother? Same thing isn't it?

[Jon Miller]

But it isn't, and people still have no intention of calling it marriage.

And people not wanting to call it marriage does not mean they are biased/etc against the parental/progeny relationship. Which is the subject of this thread.

JM

[MikeH]

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that views once considered normal, views that some people might describe as "traditional views", can now be considered bigotry.

[Jon Miller]

Traditional views can be wrong.

To say that someone who holds traditional views on marriage must be a bigot is also wrong.

JM

[MikeH]

Bigotry is wanting people to be treated differently because of some trait, eg. race, sexuality.

So wanting marriage to be treated differently if it's between 2 men, rather than a man and a woman, is wanting people to be treated differently because of sexuality, which is bigotry in my book.

[Kidlicious]

Mike,
The difference that has to keep being told to you folks is that we don't hate gays. Bigotry is hate. Not hate, not bigotry.

[Jon Miller]

By wanting marriage to be treated differently between a Father and Son, or an Employee and Boss, is wanting people to be treated differently because of XXX, which is bigotry in your book.

Bull****.

For some traditional people it is just a different definition, one which does not include two men/two women/etc pairings which would be called something else.

JM