Chick-Fil-A CEO posting more anti-gay comments.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know; how do you define "successful" society?

Well, what societies are you saying primarily practice this form? I would suggest that the societies that choose to have the father and mother primarily raising their children are larger and have much wider spread. That they are larger and wider spread would seem to indicate to me that they are more successful.

You suggested earlier that a psychologist would probably frown at the notion of factory-raised children, and you're right. That's because psychologists do have criteria for evaluating how well children are raised. You can't have it both ways, BK.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply arguing that by consistant application of these criteria that the same psychologists would arrive at the conclusion that having a father and a mother present in the home is the ideal option for a child.

[Ben Kenobi]

The etymological argument. I guess that is a new one for me. It's absurd, but it is a new one. The label we apply to a thing is a matter of linguistic convenience; provided we all understand what's going on (and I think we all do), it doesn't much matter which word we choose to apply. The underlying facts remain the same. Your argument would outlaw homonyms.

You're arguing sameness by your use of the same term. Everyone here on your side of the line has advanced the argument that 'there is no fundamental difference', which is why you use the language that you do. I am arguing that there *is* a fundamental difference, and that this fundamental difference is something that can be shown to be true, ergo, we should not use the same term to describe two different things.

It's the same argument from Plato. We understand "chair" because we have an idea of the ideal "chair" even if there are many variations - and, more significantly the perfect "chair" does not exist in this world. The forms themselves are more real than what is. I am saying that the same thing applies to "marriage", as it does to "chair" and that part of the understanding of "marriage" is of the ideal. I think everyone here understands the ideal which is why people are arguing, "gay men and women are just as good as parents", and the argument, "they are equal and should not be denied."

I'm not seeing anything from your side of the line to suggest that people reject the ideal of marriage.

I'm not entirely sure what scenario you're referring to here, but if it involves a man and a woman raising a child while desperately trying to pretend Mommy isn't a lesbian, I think even the foster home is arguably less likely to mess the kid up.

There's a case where mother was married, had a child. Left her husband, and ran off with a woman. Signed paperwork signing over shared custody with her new lover with her child. Fast forward a couple years, the mother changes her mind, attempts to go back to her husband who is the father of the child. Lesbian lover sues for visitation rights (based on the child that is not hers), and the courts sided with her. Child complains about molestation attempts during unsupervised court-ordered visitation. Mother ends court ordered visitation, and moves away with her husband. Former lesbian lover sues, and the state attempts to turn the child over to the lesbian lover trying to remove the child from both her mother and father.

It's not 'guaranteed' or 'assumed' that the father of the child loses his connection with his child. Life is not that cut and dried.

[snoopy369]

How is the argument that children do best with their mother and father a religious argument? How is the argument I've presented here arguing that there are fundamental differences in the union of a man and a woman and between a man and a man and a woman and a woman, a religious argument? You can get there from Plato.

Your argument is based on your personal opinion, which is based on your religion. It's either based on that, or it's based on nothing... as it's not based on statistics or science.

[Lorizael]

Well then, you're going to have to define what counts as 'secular'. Secular != Empirical. If you mean empirical than you need to say empirical.

Plato was neither empirical nor secular. He believed that true knowledge was divine and that you could acquire said knowledge by thinking really hard.

Well, what societies are you saying primarily practice this form? I would suggest that the societies that choose to have the father and mother primarily raising their children are larger and have much wider spread. That they are larger and wider spread would seem to indicate to me that they are more successful.

I didn't claim that societies who raise children communally are better than those that don't, but your argument is laughable. You're claiming that the success or failure of a society can be pinned down to a single factor. Now, you might claim that all societies that raise children communally are small or extinct, but most societies are small or extinct. That suggests other factors might be at play.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply arguing that by consistant application of these criteria that the same psychologists would arrive at the conclusion that having a father and a mother present in the home is the ideal option for a child.

Well, you can make that argument, but you'd be wrong. The data say otherwise. Yes, I'm sure you can point to a psychologist who says children should be raised by a mother and a father (as opposed to homoparents); I don't particularly care.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument is based on your personal opinion, which is based on your religion. It's either based on that, or it's based on nothing... as it's not based on statistics or science.

The observation that the union of man and a man and man and a woman do not have the same outcome is no different than the empirical argument used with speciation, that one defines fundamental differences between animals based on the outcome when they mate. Ergo, it is sensible that the union is fundamentally different based on the outcome of the union.

[Sava]

BK is a terrible person.

[snoopy369]

The observation that the union of man and a man and man and a woman do not have the same outcome is no different than the empirical argument used with speciation, that one defines fundamental differences between animals based on the outcome when they mate. Ergo, it is sensible that the union is fundamentally different based on the outcome of the union.

Plato would either love you for your ability to spin insane Gordian knots of logic, or hate you for said. Either way your logic is entirely flawed, as I'm sure you already know. You're arguing something nobody else gives a rat's *** about.

[snoopy369]

Ben, when a black man and a white woman marry, it's marriage just like two white or black folk, right? But the child the white couple make looks way different than the child of the interracial couple. Why do we call both things 'marriage'?

[Ben Kenobi]

Plato was neither empirical nor secular. He believed that true knowledge was divine and that you could acquire said knowledge by thinking really hard.

There *is* an empirical argument. It just has a different formulation. See above.

I didn't claim that societies who raise children communally are better than those that don't, but your argument is laughable. You're claiming that the success or failure of a society can be pinned down to a single factor.

I am not saying that. I am saying, all else being equal, that if societies that rear their children with a mother and a father as opposed to communal arrangments are, in general, more successful, then it is reasonable to argue that this arrangement is generally superior.

Now, you might claim that all societies that raise children communally are small or extinct, but most societies are small or extinct. That suggests other factors might be at play.

If they are small and extinct I am arguing that communal raising isn't as successful.

Well, you can make that argument, but you'd be wrong. The data say otherwise.

How do the studies you are citing define 'good'?

[Ben Kenobi]

Either way your logic is entirely flawed

How so?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, when a black man and a white woman marry, it's marriage just like two white or black folk, right? But the child the white couple make looks way different than the child of the interracial couple. Why do we call both things 'marriage'?

The argument that interracial couples can have children with one another is a fundamental argument for human equality, and that race is not a fundamental characteristic. We consider "cats" cats if they can breed and produce more cats. The same applies here.

Trying the same thing with the union of a man and a man - the fact that this will not produce children is an argument in favour of a fundamental inequality between the union of a man and a woman and a man and a man.

[snoopy369]

Who gets to decide what's fundamental and what isn't?

[Lorizael]

There *is* an empirical argument. It just has a different formulation. See above.

I thought we were talking about secular arguments. The fact is that assuming there is some essential nature to marriage and that it's not just a thing humans came up with for economic and social reasons means you're assuming there is something bigger from whence the definition of marriage comes. Otherwise you get in to sticky arguments about what sorts of things are fundamental, as snoopy pointed out. Maybe I think there is a Platonic paperclip somewhere up in the void, and that we should regulate paperclips accordingly.

I am not saying that. I am saying, all else being equal, that if societies that rear their children with a mother and a father as opposed to communal arrangments are, in general, more successful, then it is reasonable to argue that this arrangement is generally superior.

If they are small and extinct I am arguing that communal raising isn't as successful.

This is history, not physics. All else isn't equal. As far as I'm aware, we don't have examples of two cultures we can study that are otherwise identical but for their stance on child-rearing.

How do the studies you are citing define 'good'?

Psychological well-being, educational and social outcomes, income levels. The usual stuff.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who gets to decide what's fundamental and what isn't?

What distinguishes an element from another? The fact that the element is indivisible by chemical means. That the element is indivisible is empirical evidence for a fundamental difference. Even if one cannot detect an electron, we can still distinguish between chemical elements. In biology - the same applies to speciation, the understanding that two species are not the same species when you observe what happens when they try to breed. The principle is that the outcome defines the fundamental relationship between the two. It helps us distinguish between accidental and substantial differences.

Same here. There are substantial differences between the union of a man and a woman and between a man and a man because one can result in children and one cannot. This is an empirical observation. We have plenty of evidence showing that this is the case.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact is that assuming there is some essential nature to marriage and that it's not just a thing humans came up with for economic and social reasons means you're assuming there is something bigger from whence the definition of marriage comes.

Hence the reason I asked, "do you believe that a man and a woman who do not have sex should be considered married?"

Otherwise you get in to sticky arguments about what sorts of things are fundamental, as snoopy pointed out. Maybe I think there is a Platonic paperclip somewhere up in the void, and that we should regulate paperclips accordingly.

That there is a fundamental difference between the two is an empirical argument. There are issues with defining marriage such that conjugality no longer matters. Are you willing to take the step by saying that consummation is not required and that if a husband chooses not to have sex with his wife, that this cannot be used as grounds for divorce?

This is history, not physics. All else isn't equal. As far as I'm aware, we don't have examples of two cultures we can study that are otherwise identical but for their stance on child-rearing.

Again, the evidence we do have supports my argument here. Arguing there are more factors doesn't change the fact that this is a substantial factor.

Psychological well-being, educational and social outcomes, income levels. The usual stuff.

What do they mean by 'social outcomes'? How do they define this?