1431: "Marriage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:08 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:If the consequences were [...] anticipated by the politicians but not by the public then the public will feel betrayed.
You don't feel betrayed by policitians? I feel betrayed all the time. In many of these cases I can't figure out exactly where because the law is already too complicated. Nonetheless I see special interest groups benefiting at the public's expense all the time, and they have a lot more money behind them too. (koff MPAA koff)

Even if there's more incentive to obfuscate contracts, there is sufficient incentive to obfuscate statute too.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:30 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
orthogon wrote:If the consequences were [...] anticipated by the politicians but not by the public then the public will feel betrayed.
You don't feel betrayed by policitians? I feel betrayed all the time. In many of these cases I can't figure out exactly where because the law is already too complicated. Nonetheless I see special interest groups benefiting at the public's expense all the time, and they have a lot more money behind them too. (koff MPAA koff)

Even if there's more incentive to obfuscate contracts, there is sufficient incentive to obfuscate statute too.

Jose


I don't want to cheer on politicians or anything, but, "This could be useful to liars, so it couldn't possibly be useful to honest people," doesn't really work.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:46 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:I don't want to cheer on politicians or anything, but, "This could be useful to liars, so it couldn't possibly be useful to honest people," doesn't really work.
I don't see the connection.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:21 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?

You say "humans can prioritize goals" as if it's a panacea against all things that humans cannot do. What if it's not?


Why would the subconscious part of your brain not be able to respond positively to a child you've raised from birth and adopted as your own? Why are you assuming humans subconsciously think genetics is the most important thing?

People not subconsciously "think" about genetics. Genetics shapes people's subconscious "thinking".

It doesn't mean that the subconscious cannot be fooled. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be.

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:There's even a clear survival advantage for an inability to tell whether "your" baby is actually your child - if you have two groups, one where the males can tell and one where they can't, and a degree of infidelity in both groups, then in one group every child is accepted by its mother's mate and grows up carrying the genes that promote that behaviour,

It carries the genes that promote the "cuckoo" behavior, thus reducing the frequency of the genes that promote the "altruistic cuckold" behavior. If there is no mechanism inside the group to counteract this frequency increase, the group is going to lose the genes responsible for the "altruistic cuckolding", and it doesn't matter whether there is any competing group nearby.

Can't help but think this is an incredibly simplistic understanding of genes.

Any particular objection, or are you just not liking it?

Izawwlgood wrote:Kits repeated statements of 'how will you control your subconscious when trying to care for your adopted children', coupled with statements about 'what is best for children and the couple adopting' are all saying adoptive parents cannot care for their wards the same way they can care for their biological children.

Wrong. They aren't saying that. They are saying that adoptive parents are less likely to care the same way.

Izawwlgood wrote:Statements like;
Anyway, "more likely violence" is a minor point compared to a different, less intense degree of stepfather's affection: it's more like friendship (based on reciprocal altruism) than true parental love (based on kin selection). Of course, you can fool your own emotions, but only for so much.
Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
Are all Kit saying that adoption cannot work, because subconsciously, you do not love the child sufficiently, and the child and your partner will see that.

Wrong again. They aren't. They are saying nothing at all about "adoption cannot work".

Izawwlgood wrote:Because parenting only works if you're the biological parent due to some handwavy bullshit biological reasons, or something.

Which is your straw man.

Izawwlgood wrote:Kit has so far linked the Cinderella effect, which no one has disputed, and ignored cross-species maternal care being a thing,

Are you serious? Have you actually read the article you linked as your argument?

Izawwlgood wrote:as well as handwaved away a rebuttle to the point that adoptive parents demonstrate lower rates of abuse than biological parents ("Parental screening works"... Indeed).

Because comparing a sample deliberately prescreened to produce the wanted effect with a non-screened one can prove anything but that the screening works?

Is in how you conduct your own research?

Izawwlgood wrote:EDIT: And to back up, this is what I responded to initially from Kits gibbering:

Still, currently it's no more than one gay parent from both is a biological one. The biology of another one may somehow need to be tricked into believing in their parenthood, if we want everyone (including the child, of course) to get the best from their family.


This is an unsubstantiated and absurdly sophomoric interpretation of how biology works.

But you cannot point out on what exactly is wrong?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:43 pm UTC

For starters, I need to apologize for linking the wrong article to support my point. That was my mistake for having multiple tabs open. This is the article I meant to link on Cross Species Maternal Instincts.. I can see how that would have caused confusion.

Kit. wrote:It doesn't mean that the subconscious cannot be fooled. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be.
So this seems to be a pretty crux point you keep falling back on; do you have any proof to support your claim that adoptive parents cannot love their adopted children 'as much'?

Kit. wrote:Wrong again. They aren't. They are saying nothing at all about "adoption cannot work".
You need to reread the exchange, and what I am objecting to you saying. It's listed above in bold italics, and it's something myself and others have repeatedly brought up with you. If you want to continue to cherry pick what's been said and respond to other things, we'll have to assume you're not interested in defending your position.

Kit. wrote:But you cannot point out on what exactly is wrong?
Yes, I am others have numerous times. You are asserting that our behaviors are slave to our genetics, and that our genetics are telling us to not care for adoptive children as much as we would care for biological children.

That is wrong, on a few levels actually. Firstly, many of our behaviors are not simply due to genetic imperatives. Secondly, many of our genetic imperatives can be held in check. Thirdly, as has been repeatedly said to you, and now further clarified, a human beings genetic imperative is not 'only care for kin to the maximum of your care-ability, give everyone one else less'.

This is like a Perfect Storm of bullshit assumptions and incorrect assertions that is leading to your hypothesis, which doesn't doesn't hold up to scrutiny, of which includes the actual data.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1431: Marriage

Postby mathmannix » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:43 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Supposed self-evident absolute truths?
That forcing someone to live with their rapist is an abominable thing, and is indicative of a huge amount of related moral issues? Yeah... I feel comfortable with that one.

The law didn't force the woman to live with her rapist. The law forced the man to pay the bride price for a virgin. And let the father of the woman decide if she married him or not. (Yes, you can say the woman didn't have any say in the matter, but that wasn't an issue in that time and place and culture.) Whether or not the father allowed the marriage, the man still had to pay. And what father is going to let his daughter marry a rapist? (Or force his daughter to marry a rapist?) This law applied not only to the circumstance of a random rapist, but also to a teenage kid that hooked up with the daughter. The punishment/deterrent there is that hooking up has consequences - he has to marry her, and can never divorce her for any reason. This is not really a bad law.
You can't have it both ways, dismissing one whole part of the problem by saying "those were different times" and then following that up with a rhetorical question about modern families.

You could argue that it wasn't really a bad law at that time, but arguing that it isn't really a bad law now is abhorrent and makes you look like a pretty despicable excuse for a human being, tbh.


Yes, I meant it was not a bad law, and it should be obvious that it is not still an applicable law - like stoning adulterers, the punishment outlined (a specific price to be paid, and the marriage) are not meant to be applicable today, in American society, although the basic morals underlying the law are (adultery is bad, rape is badong) for those of us who still wish to follow the Bible today.

But I maintain that fathers back then had the same natural parental love for their daughters that fathers (like myself) do today, and wanted to protect them, unless of course there was something wrong with them (the fathers).
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Foelhe wrote:I don't want to cheer on politicians or anything, but, "This could be useful to liars, so it couldn't possibly be useful to honest people," doesn't really work.
I don't see the connection.

Jose


I want a legal code that's as good as it can be. "POLITICIANS SUCK" tells me nothing about how to do that.

Kit. wrote:
Foelhe wrote:Why would the subconscious part of your brain not be able to respond positively to a child you've raised from birth and adopted as your own? Why are you assuming humans subconsciously think genetics is the most important thing?

People not subconsciously "think" about genetics. Genetics shapes people's subconscious "thinking".


At this point I'm not sure which is more charitable: assuming you're actively avoiding the question because you don't have an answer, or assuming you're honestly not bright enough to see the problem. Why do you think genetics shapes the subconscious to that degree? What proof do you have?

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:It carries the genes that promote the "cuckoo" behavior, thus reducing the frequency of the genes that promote the "altruistic cuckold" behavior. If there is no mechanism inside the group to counteract this frequency increase, the group is going to lose the genes responsible for the "altruistic cuckolding", and it doesn't matter whether there is any competing group nearby.

Can't help but think this is an incredibly simplistic understanding of genes.

Any particular objection, or are you just not liking it?


The vast majority of humans are capable of empathy. Acting like there's some danger of altruists breeding themselves out is kind of absurd. And that's assuming there's a discrete strain of altruism-capable humans and adoptee humans, which is unsubstantiated.

User avatar
themultinational
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:02 pm UTC
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby themultinational » Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:The vast majority of humans are capable of empathy. Acting like there's some danger of altruists breeding themselves out is kind of absurd. And that's assuming there's a discrete strain of altruism-capable humans and adoptee humans, which is unsubstantiated.


It's certainly true that there are those who claim to refuse to have genetic children for altruistic reasons. I've heard some say overpopulation, I've been friends with others who say they don't want to have kids because they have some genetic condition that has caused them suffering that they do not want to pass on to their children. In this sense, a small portion of people do self-select themselves out of the gene-pool.
Last edited by themultinational on Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:18 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:I want a legal code that's as good as it can be. "POLITICIANS SUCK" tells me nothing about how to do that.
It does however suggest how not to do it. I also want a legal code that's as good as it can be. It's just that "good" isn't linear or universal.

And to be clear - I also want the law (and contracts) to be clearly written. I'm merely pointing out where this might meet resistance.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:27 pm UTC

I don't want to have a kid because I would not want to be a kid being raised in the circumstances I have available to me to raise a kid in. Is that altruistic enough?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
themultinational
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:02 pm UTC
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby themultinational » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:53 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I don't want to have a kid because I would not want to be a kid being raised in the circumstances I have available to me to raise a kid in. Is that altruistic enough?


That's a good question. Is it possible to be altruistic to a being that does not exist? Now that I think about it, we don't really know what that being would or would not want out of life or if down the road he/she would have preferred to have been born or not.

If you don't want to have a kid because you would feel guilty for that kid's circumstances, then is that out of consideration for the kid or consideration for yourself? I think both. And while it's fun to talk about,I think people should have kids for whatever reason they want, selfish, altruistic, or otherwise.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:12 pm UTC

themultinational wrote:I think people should have kids for whatever reason they want, selfish, altruistic, or otherwise.
I think that's a little overly general, and I mostly disagree with you. People don't need to justify their desire to have children, but there are absolutely wrong reasons to want children.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:48 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
themultinational wrote:I think people should have kids for whatever reason they want, selfish, altruistic, or otherwise.
I think that's a little overly general, and I mostly disagree with you. People don't need to justify their desire to have children, but there are absolutely wrong reasons to want children.

ok. That's true.

I have spent time with discarded people.
People that lived to become adults.

Some were discarded early.
Others were discarded later on.

Have you ever given it any thought?
You can. It's ok. Think about it.

Starting a new person is not all that difficult.
Some really stupid people have done it.

That new person has feelings, too.
I have spent time with ones that wish they had never been born.

Who's fault is that?
The Jerk that likes sex and does not like condoms?
The Jerk that thinks more people is the right answer?

What Jerk is responsible for men and women dying of neglect on the streets and roadways of America?
I'd like to have a moment with that Jerk.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ilduri
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:59 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ilduri » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:02 am UTC

So, I will admit I've only skimmed this thread as it has grown rather long since last I posted in it. But it seems to me that some people are objecting to gay marriage on the grounds that:
1. Non-biological parents are, on average, less loving of their children than biological parents, and
2. Allowing gay marriage causes a higher percentage of children to be raised by non-biological parents than disallowing it does.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that premise 1 is true. (I rather doubt it is, but then, I haven't really looked at any evidence.) Presumably then, you would only be opposed to gay marriages between people who are incapable of having biological children together. Gay couples who are able and willing to reproduce should be allowed to get married, right?

Because such cases do, in fact, exist. Some people are transsexual; some people are intersex. Some gay couples can have biological children together.

Sure, it's not common, but it's a lot less uncommon that you'd think. (For one thing, it's the situation I'll be in if I marry a cissexual woman, presuming we're both fertile.)

Therefore, if the above two premises are your only objections to gay marriage, then you are not, it seems, against all gay marriages, but only against most of them.

And once we're able to grow gametes from stem cells and any two people can have biological children together, then presumably you won't be against any gay marriages, right?

Or am I misunderstanding something?
Last edited by ilduri on Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:48 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Butterflies and zebras and moonbeams and fairytales"
she/her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:12 am UTC

And furthermore, they should then also be fine with gay couples who don't intend to have children, and conversely object to infertile straight couples who want children, or even fertile straight couples who would just prefer to adopt. Of course all of this presumes not only that first premise but also that marriage is either necessary or sufficient for parenthood, either biological or adoptive. It's not like people have to be married to have kids, or to adopt them, or that they have to have or adopt kids just because they got married.

Really, even granting that first premise, the legal implication should at most be banning adoption (or surrogacy, or whatever the problem is), for everyone, gay or straight, married or unmarried. And then deciding the issue of who can marry whom on other, completely unrelated grounds.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:56 am UTC

Really?

Completely unrelated grounds?
(fuck) That's what marriage is.
Completely unrelated grounds.

I see you are coming around to my point of view.
Don't add this burden to gay folk. Make it Fair.
Take the yoke from straight people.

Children?
They get to walk out as soon as they can walk, too.
What? Do you see a problem?

OK! OK!
Marry Gay!

What is The Answer to our suffering?
Divorce quickly and often?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:05 am UTC

Klear wrote:Maybe Kit. is the devil.


Really ? In that case let's all go on a boat for the sake of the argument. ;-)

Overall satisfaction ?

Anyway, what's your satisfaction with this discussion (in itself and compared to other discussions) ?

My personal feeling (not to influence any answer) is that people who participate (I can't guess about lurkers) already had an opinion that did not change, though perhaps a little more informed.
External facts (whatever their side) were often dismissed as non-relevant (not to say they were well presented or rebutted).
Even The Credible Hulk would not have convinced, would he ?

Attempt at a summary

What have we learned ? Feel free to adjust, that's just my quick summary.

* no obvious homophobic behavior here (violence to gay people seems rare nowadays, at least in France)
* each person has a pre-existing definition of marriage and that definition determines if gay marriage is obvious or absurd
* same about adoption, and as pointed out most issues are not specific to the sex or sexual behavior of people involved, but rather to parameters like "is the child lacking one or two parents by accident or on purpose ?" (some find it okay in all cases, some not)
* surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology complicate things (child has biological parents, plus one surrogate, plus one or to adoptive parent), and as pointed out most issues are not specific to the sex or sexual behavior of people involved.
* raising a biological child is different from being a stepparent, which is different from adopting, and the differences are not obvious (I cannot check now but I think people mentioned statistics that the rate of problems is higher with stepparent but lower with adopters)

Feel free to adjust.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:43 am UTC

You're not the moderator of a formal debate, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with posts like that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:You're not the moderator of a formal debate, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with posts like that.

MGitsfullofsheep seems to be attempting to bring Order to a Chaotic discussion.
By listing The Points, it may become more clear for MGitsfullofsheep and for others.

Kit did a weird job of backing us up to some very old discussions.
I am reassured.

it seems xkcd will not take the bait and agree to the
merciful yet legally required killing of younglings that are unsupported by two first degree relatives.

I thought that had been settled long ago.
Rethinking is ok.

It's nice we came up with the same answer, again.
On an individual basis, we will marry. (darned)
On an individual basis, we will produce new people.
On an individual basis, we will divorce, kill, run away.

Nothing much will change.
Except...When Kit gets married, there may be extra heckling from The Crowd.

Especially, from The Step-Children.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:53 pm UTC

MGitsfullofsheep wrote:* no obvious homophobic behavior here (violence to gay people seems rare nowadays, at least in France)

One of the very best courses I took in college was entitled Theories and Dynamics of Racism and Oppression. While it's greatest focus was on racism in the United States (it was taught out of the African-American Studies program at the university), one of the main points of the course was just how generalized oppression is and how it tends to fall into very specific patterns, regardless of the parties or cultures involved.

One of the concepts that Professor Jones liked to use was to break oppression into a four categories, forming a 2x2 grid. On one axis you had direct/indirect and the other personal/institutional. Now, since this particular course was focused on racism, Prof. Jones' used the concept to explain how it was true that direct personal and institutional racism were relatively rare these days (although certainly not non-existent), other forms of racisms were still quite endemic in this country. But extending the basic concept to bigotry against homosexuals, and you can see how laws against them marrying could fit quite comfortably into the "direct institutional oppression" box.

In short, there are obvious homophobic behaviors that go beyond simply beating the crap out of gay people.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:20 pm UTC

ilduri wrote:So, I will admit I've only skimmed this thread as it has grown rather long since last I posted in it. But it seems to me that some people are objecting to gay marriage on the grounds that:
1. Non-biological parents are, on average, less loving of their children than biological parents, and
2. Allowing gay marriage causes a higher percentage of children to be raised by non-biological parents than disallowing it does.


Even if this were fact(which I doubt), it would seem like a terrible fix.

1. A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.

2. We are not really interested if biological parents on average are more loving, but if allowing adoption results in better outcomes than not allowing adoption. Children are not selected for adoption at random. It seems likely that the real alternatives to being adopted do not consist of "loving biological parents are happy to raise them". If that was an option, they wouldn't have been put up for adoption.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.
Sort of, though I feel this just pushes back the issue of equality. "Fine you can have these rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but you can't adopt because [stupidreason]."

Tyndmyr wrote:We are not really interested if biological parents on average are more loving
While I agree with everything else you said in this paragraph, I just want to be a bit obnoxious and say I actually care about the above point; using bad evolutionary psychology to make a point makes me hopping mad, and there is more than ample supporting evidence that non-biological parenting is something we are evolutionary hardwired to do, and do extremely well.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.
Sort of, though I feel this just pushes back the issue of equality. "Fine you can have these rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but you can't adopt because [stupidreason]."

I read Tyndmyr as saying the better fix (if any fix were needed, which is still an open question) would be to legislate on adoption by anybody, since it's not "gay adoption" that's the supposed problem, it's any adoption, full stop. Then it wouldn't be an issue of equality. It might still be for stupid reasons anyway.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby jpvlsmv » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

One thing I have never been able to find out (when thinking about the same-sex marriage debate) is exactly where the entity that proclaims the marriage actually verifies the gender of the people involved.

I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

I heard a story about two couples who were relevant to this:

Pat and Jane got married. Pat was male, and Jane was female. Pat had surgery to replace his male anatomy with female, after their marriage (and, by the way, after having children together). Is their marriage legally recognized now? When did their marital rights end?

Chris and Sue got married. Chris was born with female anatomy, but had surgery before their marriage to replace that with male anatomy. On the marriage license, Chris's name is in the "Husband" column, even though on Chris's birth certificate, the "Female" box is marked. Is this a same-sex marriage? Is it legally valid?

What does it take to legally change your gender so that you can put your name in a different column on the marriage form?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby orthogon » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:18 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

"Say what you like about jpvlsmv, but his penis is in the right place".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.
Sort of, though I feel this just pushes back the issue of equality. "Fine you can have these rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but you can't adopt because [stupidreason]."


Well, logically, the same concerns should apply to hetero adoptions as well. So...it maps to an adoption issue, but not particularly well to marriages(since many marriages do not adopt). Now, I don't deny that people WOULD try to make it an anti-gay thing...but logically, the argument doesn't really lead you there. You kind of have to be heading there already, looking for justifications for your goal.

Tyndmyr wrote:We are not really interested if biological parents on average are more loving
While I agree with everything else you said in this paragraph, I just want to be a bit obnoxious and say I actually care about the above point; using bad evolutionary psychology to make a point makes me hopping mad, and there is more than ample supporting evidence that non-biological parenting is something we are evolutionary hardwired to do, and do extremely well.


Oh, that's likely. People even care about pets to a very strong degree, and consider them family.

But...even if that were not the case, the original argument is drawing a comparison that doesn't really map to the choice that actually exists for adoption/not adoption. It's a strange comparison.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:38 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

Not having been married, I wouldn't know for sure, but I would suspect they would request some form of official identification from you to complete the license, and that that form of identification would have a sex identifier on it, which would be sufficient for their purposes. Likewise I would suspect (and I think someone earlier in this thread said something that entailed) the same is sufficient for couples with a trans person involved: if the person writing their name under "husband" has an "M" on their ID and the person writing their name under "wife" has an "F" on their ID, that's a straight marriage as far as the law is concerned. The question of whether the law will allow you to change your "M" to an "F" or vice versa and if so under what circumstances is another matter. (And I am curious, not having investigated it before: in the US, are there some states that allow it and others that don't? I guess I had just assumed that everyone allows it, since I know it does happen and I hadn't heard anything similar to the growing-number-of-states-allowing-gay-marriage progress on that front, so I just assumed it could happen anywhere in the country).

I am curious though what happens when people with "M" and "F" on their respective IDs get married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then one of them changes their "M" to "F" or vice versa. Is the marriage suddenly annulled, or can a gay marriage sneak onto the books in that way?

ETA: This talk of the law of marriage caring more about the "sex" flag on your ID than what's actually in your pants or your genes or your endocrine system or whatever reminds me a bit of an excellent article I read a while back about gay marriage and related issues when viewed from a database design standpoint, which I think really highlights some of the absurdities involved quite well. ('There are a lot of people in the world who actually think like this [obviously terrible database schema]. This is their for-real, no-joking conception of "marriage". They do not grasp that men and women are interchangeable, as a result of which homosexual marriages create repulsive integrity problems in their heads. "But if they're both guys, which one is the wife? Does not compute!" How sad.')
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby jpvlsmv » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:28 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

Not having been married, I wouldn't know for sure, but I would suspect they would request some form of official identification from you to complete the license, and that that form of identification would have a sex identifier on it, which would be sufficient for their purposes.

Surprisingly, no, they didn't require an ID either time.

Pfhorrest wrote:I am curious though what happens when people with "M" and "F" on their respective IDs get married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then one of them changes their "M" to "F" or vice versa. Is the marriage suddenly annulled, or can a gay marriage sneak onto the books in that way?

Yeah, kinda my question in a nutshell.

And/or is there a penalty for lying-- if I had put my name in the Wife column, and my (female) partner had put hers in the Husband column, would we still be married?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.
Sort of, though I feel this just pushes back the issue of equality. "Fine you can have these rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but you can't adopt because [stupidreason]."

Tyndmyr wrote:We are not really interested if biological parents on average are more loving
While I agree with everything else you said in this paragraph, I just want to be a bit obnoxious and say I actually care about the above point; using bad evolutionary psychology to make a point makes me hopping mad, and there is more than ample supporting evidence that non-biological parenting is something we are evolutionary hardwired to do, and do extremely well.

Amen, Izawwlgood.
We are.

Lucky is the child that is wanted and treasured on their own merits.
To be biologically related to people is a burden all of it's own.

I also have Real Life personal experiences.
I don't look like my mother's family, much.

They could see my Father in me.
That was not much of a blessing.

My completely unrelated GrandFather.
A man that married my GrandMother late in life.

He took me in and took very good care of me.
Because, he did not Know my biological parents.

He was a delightful old man.
He may have taken care of AnyOne.

He took care of Animals, too.
We All followed him around.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:08 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

Not having been married, I wouldn't know for sure, but I would suspect they would request some form of official identification from you to complete the license, and that that form of identification would have a sex identifier on it, which would be sufficient for their purposes.

Surprisingly, no, they didn't require an ID either time.

Pfhorrest wrote:I am curious though what happens when people with "M" and "F" on their respective IDs get married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then one of them changes their "M" to "F" or vice versa. Is the marriage suddenly annulled, or can a gay marriage sneak onto the books in that way?

Yeah, kinda my question in a nutshell.

And/or is there a penalty for lying-- if I had put my name in the Wife column, and my (female) partner had put hers in the Husband column, would we still be married?

Here in the UK, there's a clause that basically says that so long as the forms are filled out in good faith, any errors in procedure don't invalidate the marriage.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A fairly obviously better targetted fix would be to legislate on adoption, rather than marriage.
Sort of, though I feel this just pushes back the issue of equality. "Fine you can have these rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, but you can't adopt because [stupidreason]."


Well, logically, the same concerns should apply to hetero adoptions as well. So...it maps to an adoption issue, but not particularly well to marriages(since many marriages do not adopt). Now, I don't deny that people WOULD try to make it an anti-gay thing...but logically, the argument doesn't really lead you there. You kind of have to be heading there already, looking for justifications for your goal.

Tyndmyr wrote:We are not really interested if biological parents on average are more loving
While I agree with everything else you said in this paragraph, I just want to be a bit obnoxious and say I actually care about the above point; using bad evolutionary psychology to make a point makes me hopping mad, and there is more than ample supporting evidence that non-biological parenting is something we are evolutionary hardwired to do, and do extremely well.


Oh, that's likely. People even care about pets to a very strong degree, and consider them family.

But...even if that were not the case, the original argument is drawing a comparison that doesn't really map to the choice that actually exists for adoption/not adoption. It's a strange comparison.
To the first part, I think I was just misreading your post, as Pforrest explained. If you're making it more difficult for ALL people to adopt, then yes, this is a reform that addresses the issue.

As for the second, I'm having a hard time parsing what you meant in the second part. The original argument Kit. brought up was that adoption is problematic because individuals cannot care for non-biological wards 'as much', which I object to. I feel anyone is capable of caring for a child to the maximum of the ability they are able to care for a child, that child being biological offspring of yours or not. I don't argue that some may care for their biological offspring more, but that's nto what was being claimed by Kit.

What are you saying in the second part of your post?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:18 pm UTC

I'm saying that it's actually irrelevant if biological parents, on average care for children more than adopted parents.

Because, when you have a kid that's being selected for adoption...there is a reason for that. Usually, there is no choice between "do we let his loving, wonderful parents keep him" or "do we adopt them off". We're selecting the second one because the first isn't an option.

So, if we compare actual, real word options, we SHOULD be comparing if it's better to "adopt the kiddo off" or "let the kid live on the street" or "stick him in the workhouse" or "make him stay in an abusive/dysfunctional home".

And that choice is goddamned obvious.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Xeio » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:20 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I am curious though what happens when people with "M" and "F" on their respective IDs get married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then one of them changes their "M" to "F" or vice versa. Is the marriage suddenly annulled, or can a gay marriage sneak onto the books in that way?
Yeah, kinda my question in a nutshell.
I know a lot of people (my parents included) dancing around in that minefield of a question.

You may imagine most people don't want to rock the boat to find out the answer while everything is working 'fine'.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And that choice is goddamned obvious.
Also true.

However,
Kit. wrote:Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
Is what I was arguing against with respect to adoptive parents being able to love their adopted wards 'as their own', to use Kits gibberish parlance.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
themultinational
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:02 pm UTC
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby themultinational » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:14 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
themultinational wrote:I think people should have kids for whatever reason they want, selfish, altruistic, or otherwise.
I think that's a little overly general, and I mostly disagree with you. People don't need to justify their desire to have children, but there are absolutely wrong reasons to want children.


That's fair. I was painting with quite a broad stroke. I guess to reign in my statement I think both selfish and altruistic motives are ideal.

By selfish I mean that, well if you don't want to have a kid then ideally you shouldn't.
Why raise a kid saying "I never actually wanted you but it seemed like the right thing to do."

On the other hand, raising a kid for purely selfish reasons also seems no good.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:01 am UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
jpvlsmv wrote:I've been married twice, and I wrote my name in the "Husband" column both times. But the county clerk (license issuer) never asked to see my penis as proof that it was the right place.

Not having been married, I wouldn't know for sure, but I would suspect they would request some form of official identification from you to complete the license, and that that form of identification would have a sex identifier on it, which would be sufficient for their purposes.

Surprisingly, no, they didn't require an ID either time.

Pfhorrest wrote:I am curious though what happens when people with "M" and "F" on their respective IDs get married in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, then one of them changes their "M" to "F" or vice versa. Is the marriage suddenly annulled, or can a gay marriage sneak onto the books in that way?

Yeah, kinda my question in a nutshell.

And/or is there a penalty for lying-- if I had put my name in the Wife column, and my (female) partner had put hers in the Husband column, would we still be married?

This article has some maps that might help answer your questions. (In particular there's a map about identification papers that shows which states require what for changing your legal gender.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:41 am UTC

There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:41 am UTC

themultinational wrote:Why raise a kid saying "I never actually wanted you but it seemed like the right thing to do."
A lot of excellent parents didn't want to be parents.
themultinational wrote:On the other hand, raising a kid for purely selfish reasons also seems no good.
I think the problem is you're seemingly freely interchanging between 'selfish to the child' and 'selfish to the parent'. It's a little confusing to follow.

When I think of selfish reasons to have a kid, I think of say, having a kid only to keep your partner in the relationship, to draw additional welfare from the state (AFAIK, this isn't really a thing), or in some situations (but not all!) to serve as an organ donor for another sick child (this is a veritable MESS of a situation), etc. I would say all of these situations of placing something before the child means you probably won't be a great parent (though this obviously isn't a binary).

Not being ready to be a parent, or even not wanting to be a parent, by no means means someone isn't going to be a good parent. We are extremely empathetic social creatures that utilize a k-type selection. We invest in children, and the instinct/urge to do so is very very strong.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Klear » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:53 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
themultinational wrote:Why raise a kid saying "I never actually wanted you but it seemed like the right thing to do."
A lot of excellent parents didn't want to be parents.


That's pretty unlikely to happen with adoption, however.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:26 pm UTC

addams wrote:There might be a good reason to have gender on ID.
I don't know what that reason is. Do you?

Take gender Off ID.
That will fix that.


It roughly halves the number of people who can claim that ID as their own...


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests