Manwe on 5/7/2015 at 13:41
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Yeah; I think the fact that people like you can be accepted in normal society is a really good example of the horrors of preconditioning.
What you don't seem to understand is that normal society is the rest of the world, and fucked up, warped and abnormal is the US.
Gryzemuis on 5/7/2015 at 14:15
Quote Posted by Manwe
Gryzemuis you have to understand I'm not American. In France IVF, surrogacy and even adoption are still very rare and kind of a taboo.
I didn't know that. My French is pretty bad, so I don't follow any French news. (More German, British, Scandinavian even).
In the Netherlands 1 in 37 babies are IVF-babies. (4892 out of 181k) Do you think that is a lot ?
If the rate of hetero vs homosexual people (5%) would apply here, there should have been at least 181k * 5% = 9k IVF-children, for homosexual couples alone.
In 2009 to 2014 respectively, we (
http://www.adoptie.nl/m/adoptie_cijfers/mn/2/) imported 682 (2009), 705, 529, 488, 401 and 354 (2014) children from abroad for adoption. Note, that number is going down over the years. That's about 0.2% of all babies born in NL. That's one adoption baby vs 500 born children. Last year, most were from China, 137. Weirdly, babies adopted from the US are number 2, with 28 babies !
We also have had gay-marriage here since 2001.
Do you really think these numbers are large ? Bloated because of the last 14 years of same-sex marriage in my country ? As I said, my French is bad, so I'm not gonna google for French numbers. But I bet the (relative) numbers will not be so different between France and NL.
BTW, I agree that adoption might cause problems. But I don't know enough about the subject. There's drawbacks of getting a kid out of their own environment. But if the alternative is growing up in poverty, or growing up in an orphanage, then adoption might be better. In any case, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
IVF is just modern technology. I don't see the downsides of it. Complaining about IVF is the same as complaining that steam-trains will ruin the world.
Quote:
Couples have to travel abroad to do it (just like adoption I think).
Are you saying that in France, you can't legally adopt children from abroad ?
About surrogate-months, sure, there are dilemmas there. But those existed long before same-sex marriage. It's really unrelated. The whole discussion about IVF, adoption and surrogate-mothers stands on itself. If you allow those or not, if you think those are problems or not, you should decide law on those issues for all people. Not just because same-sex couples might start using them.
Quote:
Since more gay couples mean more demand for surrogacy, IVF and adoption, it's safe to assume not long from now the government will eventually give in to their demands and legalize it.
You don't know that.
Law should be equal for all. Give justice for all. You shouldn't make or change laws only because percentages go up or down. If a 1000 hetero-sexual couples want something, you can't allow it because it's just a 1000 of them. And deny it when 10k homosexual couples want it too.
Quote:
those things aren't progress, they're fucked up
That is from your perspective. Because you (assuming you are hetero-sexual, white and male) have had all the benefits for centuries. Slavery was really good and prosperous. When you were white. But if you were black, slavery looked a lot more fucked up. Disallowing same-sex marriages was just a bigoted action by people who had right for themselves, but didn't want other people to have the same rights. There is no other way around it.
Quote:
and lead to inevitable exploitation of the poor by the rich. ....The US nowadays is pretty much our future in 10-20 years. And I'm sorry to say that's a scary thought.
I agree that the poor get exploited by the rich. Happened for centuries. It looked as if it was getting better from 1945-1980. But the last years it is getting even worse. However, I think the poor have really more important issues to worry about, than same-sex marriage.
I also agree that following the US is a scary thought. Look at TTIP, and how the European Commision wants to push it down our throats without anyone realizing what is happening. Look at surveillance by NSA (getting worse than the DDR). However, accepting same-sex marriages has nothing to do with that. I hope the French people can still vote for their own laws.
Edit: I also just saw that France already has same-sex marriage for 2 years.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France)
So what are you talking about "following the US" ? You are 2 years ahead. :)
Manwe on 5/7/2015 at 21:42
Yes that's what I meant to say with
Quote:
so with the recent adoption of gay marriage
That was poorly worded on my part sorry for the confusion. What I said about following the US was in regards to IVF and surrogacy. We're headed there step by step.
Quote:
Are you saying that in France, you can't legally adopt children from abroad ?
You can, but from what I gather it's a long and difficult process. I looked up the numbers, and in 2009 we adopted (
http://bebe.notrefamille.com/maman/je-veux-un-enfant/adoption/adopter-a-l-etranger-m75209.html) 3271 foreign babies and (
http://bebe.notrefamille.com/maman/je-veux-un-enfant/adoption/page-1-m74104.html) 714 french orphans. With a total population of 66 million people that's about 0.006% of the population? So yeah your numbers seem awfully big. Number of IVF babies is probably even lower than that. I'm not that opposed to IVF, I guess it's ok. Surrogate mothers on the other hand I find just creepy. Anyway the question of children seems pretty central to the concept of marriage in my opinion, I mean that's like the whole point. Or am I just old-fashioned?
Gryzemuis on 5/7/2015 at 22:03
So the French imported 4.8x more babies for adoption than we did in 2009. (3271 vs 682).
While the French population is 3.8x bigger than ours (66M vs 17M).
Remember, we had same-sex marriage since 2001.
I would draw the conclusion, that having same-sex marriage *decreases* the amount of foreign adoptions !
The numbers support it.
Statistic.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Of course, I would not draw these conclusions from these numbers. But I do believe that the assumption that same-sex marriage increases foreign adoptions is UTTER BOLLOX.
Quote:
Anyway the question of children seems pretty central to the concept of marriage in my opinion, I mean that's like the whole point. Or am I just old-fashioned?
Maybe children are central to marriage to you.
I don't want children, never wanted children. Does that mean that I should not be allowed to marry ????
People should learn to try and see things *also* from other people's perspective.
Maybe I should spend less time reading forums on the web. It sometimes drives me crazy.
People arguing "I like red, therefor tomatoes are the best!". "But I like blue. Therefor blueberries are the best". "No, tomatoes". "No, blueberries". "But can't you see that blueberries are not red ?". "Sure, but I like blueberries". "But I just explained why tomatoes are the best !??!"
Same thing here.
"I want children. I want to be married. Therefor I see no reason why other people should be allowed to marry, if they don't want children anyway. Or if I don't want them to have children".
Thirith on 6/7/2015 at 07:12
Quote Posted by Manwe
I'm not that opposed to IVF, I guess it's ok. Surrogate mothers on the other hand I find just creepy. Anyway the question of children seems pretty central to the concept of marriage in my opinion, I mean that's like the whole point. Or am I just old-fashioned?
"Creepy" isn't an argument for or against anything. Some people find homosexuality creepy. Some people find 'mixed marriages' (what a stupid term!) creepy. Some people used to find left-handed people creepy. I agree with you that there are potential problems with surrogacy, and yes, it can be done in an exploitative way - but it needn't be. I don't see any exploitation in a woman whose life is stable, who isn't financially dependent on this, who most likely already got kids of her own and who wants to help others who otherwise can't have children to have a shot at this choosing to be a surrogate mother. The solution IMO is to regulate it and reduce the likelihood of it being exploited, not to ignore that it's happening.
As far as your other point is concerned: what about couples that can't have kids? Should they divorce, or not be allowed to get married in the first place? Again, this is not something that's inherently hetero- vs. homosexual.
Manwe on 7/7/2015 at 00:14
Quote:
I agree with you that there are potential problems with surrogacy, and yes, it can be done in an exploitative way - but it needn't be.
If there is potential for abuse, you can bet capitalism will do its thing and abuse the shit out of it. But what do I know, I'm just going by the history of capitalism since forever.
Quote:
As far as your other point is concerned: what about couples that can't have kids? Should they divorce, or not be allowed to get married in the first place? Again, this is not something that's inherently hetero- vs. homosexual.
I'm not saying getting married is conditional on making a child, I'm saying having a child is usually one of the result of two people getting together. I'm assuming that logic applies in some form to gay couples as well. I mean otherwise we might as well just say bye bye to the human race.
Now I don't know how it works in the US but in France now that homosexuals can get married they've acquired the same rights as heterosexual couples regarding kids. That means lesbian couples can adopt or use IVF just like heterosexual couples. Male couples on the other hand can only resort to adoption as the use of surrogate mothers is illegal here (or they have to do it abroad which is probably really difficult and expensive). Do you see a problem there? Heterosexuals and lesbians can have biological children, but male couples can't. In a world where equality is the be-all and end-all, that shit won't fly. It's only natural that a few years down the line they'll ask for the same rights. And until science can find a way to impregnate men, surrogate mothers will remain the key. This is why in France gay marriage and surrogacy are intrinsically linked. At least that's what I gather from the endless rallies opposing a law that was passed two years ago (I'd sincerely forgotten it had been that long as the debates raged on forever).
I know the US is far beyond all that so probably completely off-topic, but whatever.
faetal on 7/7/2015 at 09:12
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
No, it's not a "slippery slope argument". As I alluded to earlier, Here is what Justice Kennedy had to say on the matter:
"“it is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation's society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage."
From elsewhere in the ruling:
The four attributes are described here, but I am going to refrain from using the quote function as doing so would create a massive wall of text: (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/whats-in-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling/)
You can not logically argue that what he describes does not apply to polygamous couples as well as monogamous ones. The only room for debate is that Kennedy used the phrase "two person union", but seeing as he did not specifically exclude multi-person unions that precedent is unlikely to hold up if challenged.
Yes and the reason your argument is a slippery slope one is that it turns "polygamous marriages can potentially be valid under the same ruling" to "polygamy is going to be on the increase to the extent that it starts swallowing up women's rights".
Quote:
Strawman, see above. Respond to what I actually said. There is overwhelming correlation between polygamous societies and a deterioration of gender rights.
Yes, but you've still not shown why the validation of gay marriage will lead to an increase in polygamy. When polygamy is pushed as a cultural norm, it erodes rights for sure, but there is no cultural gradient introduced by this ruling which suggests there will be an increase in polygamy. Since you're not stupid, I guess you probably already know this so are just using it as a trojan horse for not liking gay marriage.
Quote:
The thing is, "knowing many people" doesn't make you somehow more qualified to speak on the issue. It's like when white people think they understand racism because "I have black friends" or think they understand anti-gay bigotry because "I have gay friends". Doesn't work that way.
I didn't say I was more qualified, I said that I know it exists. You are arguing the wrong thing. You are the one who repeatedly downplays rape culture as if it is somehow an over-reaction to just bros being bros or whatever.
Quote:
And yes, it is still very much a first world way of looking at the problem. The key difference is that women here still have a lot more control over that situation Admittedly this study uses the debunked "1 in 4" statistic but they also found that (
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm) approximately half of all rapes involve alcohol
Yes and it is still awful. Again, the x is worse than y, therefore y is not bad argument doesn't have any weight. Rape culture and objectification / stereotyping of women in western countries is a problem and one which can be fixed.
Quote:
Girls in Polygamous societies like the Mormon communities or other parts of the world can do all of jack shit to lower their risk.
Again, no indication that we're heading to an increase in polygamy.
Quote:
Again, since you're a bit of a black and white thinker,
Again, since you're not qualified to make such an assessment, I'll just ignore the pointless
ad hominem - I can dismiss your personal opinion of me given that you are a stranger on the internet I have never met...
Quote:
...I have to add that I am NOT saying that the rapey hookup culture that exists is OK....but you have to be able to think beyond the specific issue and put it on context. To borrow a phrase from Warren Buffet it's better to be generally right than precisely wrong.
I'm also not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Put it in *what* context though? Isn't it enough to just recognise that it's a problem and look for ways to reduce it?
Quote:
Last Bit.
Do you know who predicted the emergence of a "rape culture" all the way back in 1968?
It was Pope Paul VI talking about what would happen if contraception was legalFrom his 1968 encyclical on artificial birth control
Key phrase is "reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires".
That sounds like "rape culture".
There is no causal link here - it is possible to predict by accident. Many people can call something and then ignore if it doesn't later turn out to be right, but then over-emphasise the times they were right. If you make enough predictions, some of them will come true -Nostradamus etc...
Rape culture is quite possibly amplified by sex being more free, but that does not mean that we can't keep the liberated sexuality without eradicating the rape culture. We don't see Christianity as being the *cause* of sexual predation of children and subsequent cover-ups in the highest echelons of the Catholic church. It's just associated and it's possible to root out the problem without returning to the drawing board.
What exactly would your suggestion be Tony? Sex only within marriages? Because that sure works out well for women. I recommend some reading about how under-reported rape within marriages is.
Tony_Tarantula on 19/7/2015 at 00:53
Also
FUCKING HELL
With an annual family income of $20,000, I apparently don't qualify for subsidies and I'm supposed to pay $500/month....
ON A MONTHLY FUCKING INCOME OF A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR SCHOOL.
Fuck you assholes that supported this shit. Because of people like you I know have to be uninsured for the next two years.
Fafhrd on 19/7/2015 at 04:57
What state do you live in? You absolutely do qualify for subsidies.
Tony_Tarantula on 15/8/2015 at 17:19
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
What state do you live in? You absolutely do qualify for subsidies.
No, I don't.
It's a vagary of the way my income is accounted for. I'm receiving federal education benefits. At the federal level those do not count for income. However the state I'm in does count those for income.
Sorry Fafhrd, can't disclose the state. I've previously mentioned that I'm taking a break from the workforce for school. Since I'm at a well known program I'd be doxxing myself if I named the state......and there's a very real glass ceiling for conservatives in business.
Fortunately I was able to find an exception. I'm uninsured for all intents and purposes but covered on paper so I don't get fined.
As an aside believe me when I say that the people running these companies aren't bothered by the law at all. The people who run companies that are heavily dependent on R&D activities are somewhat encumbered by over regulation but the executives I've gotten to talk to on campus from healthcare provider companies have admitted that the ACA hasn't harmed their businesses when I asked.
Re: the "slippery slope".
I don't think you all are quite understanding what I'm saying.
In the United States courts are OBLIGATED to rule in a manner that is consistent with the logic of existing legal precedent as set by the rulings of previous cases and higher level courts who have jurisdiction in that geography.
Lawsuits challenging the current ban on polygamy have already been filed in multiple states.
In other words:
The Judges presiding over those cases can not rule against polygamy without being derelict in their duties.