The following was posted to our comment section by Miles, who is an active but recent commenter here. For future reference, you can always tag a comment with something like, "I know this is off-topic but I've always wanted to know this of the readership of Opine Editorials. Please post this to the front page for their consideration".
That isn't a guarantee we'll do it, likely if I feel the topic has been covered I'll point to that other thread. Or if I feel that the topic may be too centered on material that doesn't relate to marriage, I may also. It is up to our discretion, but you'll at least be given a public reason. So without further commentary, click "Read More" for the full post:
I've compiled a list of 10 assertions and am curious to find out which, if any, of them are held by any of you to be false. If you wish, you can simply respond with something like "1-7, agree; 8, not sure; 9-10, disagree."
- Some people are gay.
- Some gay people live together as couples ("couple": two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually).
- Gay couples are prohibited from marrying in California.
- Gay couples/individuals are not prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California.
- Tens of thousands of children are being raised by gay couples in California alone.
- "[I]t is almost certainly true that gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit by having gay marriage."
- There is no guarantee that California's prohibition against gay couples marrying will ever be lifted.
- Whether gay couples can marry in California has no effect on the legal capacity of those couples "to become parents" (via the means discussed in #4 above).
- It is possible that some gay couples in California are waiting "to become parents" until they are legally allowed to marry.
- It is possible that the sun will explode tomorrow.
You can read what The Playful Walrus has already said in reply, here.
Thank you for setting this up, On Lawn. Hopefully Chairm is planning to re-post his comment here on this new thread; I barely had a chance to read it before he removed it. I'm eager to read what any and all Opine contributors have to say.
ReplyDeleteNo problem. As I like to say, asking me questions is like pulling a gun on a cop...
ReplyDeleteI may or may not agree with your assertions as written. But here are the assertions that I can agree with, and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out if that is a yes or no.
1. Some people experience same-gender attraction
2. Some people live together as couples, triads, etc... both committed platonic and committed romantic, and non-committed platonic and non-committed romantic.
3. Gay couples are not recognized as a marriage, though most of the benefits of marriage are provided through Domestic Partnerships.
4. Adoption is a means to restore to a child what was taken away through neglect, disability, inability, or death. Namely a mother and father hopefully committed by marriage. Care needs to be taken so that adoption doesn't turn into a sort of legal receipt for a child-trade. In other news, individuals, couples and triads recognized by the state in a mutually trusting and committed relationship should not be barred from being foster parents, same-sex or both sexed.
5. Tens of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, a majority of which are in non-romantic bonds of mutual support and commitment though their relationship would not be considered "gay", in California alone. Still others form small groups of mutual assistance, consisting of two men or women (related or not) who band together to raise their children together. A woman living with an elderly couple (related or not).
6. It is almost certainly true that many ineligible couples, triads or other mutually supporting relationship (which is a much larger set then "gay") and their children would benefit from the benefits of marriage.
7. There is no reason that California's explicit recognition of equality in marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, and the child they potentially having together, be altered. In fact it would dilute or impede the ability of marriage as an institution to address that must vital and humanitarian concern. However benefits can and often should be extended to other mutual-beneficiary relationships as an institution.
8. Re-defining marriage to be just an adult enterprise of giving care to children opens up to de=stabilizing legal doctrines such as "de-facto parenting" which gives the same legal status to any care giver of a child. This has already caused grief for children who are now up for grabs legally by people who simply lived with their real mom and dad for a time.
9. It is possible that some gay couples in California are waiting to adopt, or even pay the other gender to abandon as much as have children for them, until they are legally allowed to marry for the protections and leverage it would give them should their status with the child be challenged.
10. The only thing we can be sure of when it comes to the Sun is that it didn't explode 8 minutes ago.
1. Some people are gay.
ReplyDeleteWe get into trying to define just what "gay" means, which gets problematic. But I'll phrase it this way: Whatever the cause or reason, some people strongly feel sexually attracted to their own gender and not the opposite gender. True.
2. Some gay people live together as couples ("couple": two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually).
Obviously true.
3. Gay couples are prohibited from marrying in California.
Legally, as far as the state calling it marriage is concerned, true.
4. Gay couples/individuals are not prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California.
True.
5. Tens of thousands of children are being raised by gay couples in California alone.
I don't know the exact number, but I'll take your word for it.
6. "[I]t is almost certainly true that gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit by having gay marriage."
As for being "almost certainly true", false. I would say that there is a good possibility that having gay marriage may paradoxically make things worse for them down the line in many ways, or at least no better, because neutering marriage may result in time in an exacerbation of the cultural battle lines between gay and straight, and this may be particularly evident in children's peer relations. I have to post a topic on this myself to go into it a lot further. But more relevant to these questions is whether or not same-sex couples now think that such children will be better if they get married.
7. There is no guarantee that California's prohibition against gay couples marrying will ever be lifted.
True, though I think many gays in California think it will be.
8. Whether gay couples can marry in California has no effect on the legal capacity of those couples "to become parents" (via the means discussed in #4 above)
Legally, true. Culturally, false.
9. It is possible that some gay couples in California are waiting "to become parents" until they are legally allowed to marry.
Absolutely true that it is at least "possible" that "some" are, and perhaps likely that many are. An even bigger likelihood is that future gay couples will be more likely to adopt if SSM is legal.
10. It is possible that the sun will explode tomorrow
Yes, but exponentially less possible than #9 is. That is what you're getting at, correct?
Thank you, R.K.
ReplyDeleteStill no reappearance of Chairm's response? Maybe he is rethinking his positions. :)
On Lawn, your "response" is non-responsive, but that's okay--this isn't a court of law, so you don't have to answer directly if you don't want to. Plus, I like that you know that it takes sunlight 8 minutes to reach the earth.
Anybody else find fault with any of the 10 assertions offered above?
Miles: > On Lawn, your "response" is non-responsive
ReplyDeleteHowso? specifically... :)
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteI refer you to your preamble. Also, see my #4 and your #4.
Has anyone heard from Chairm lately? I'd really like another shot at deciphering the response he posted earlier, then removed.
In reference to #10, I was too generous in my answer. Click here.
ReplyDeleteMiles, since On Lawn indicated that your list was to be moved to a new blogpost, I decided to withdraw my initial response and wait to see if your list would be accompanied by a better explanation.
ReplyDeleteInitially, off the cuff, my response had been to frame your list for the marriage issue. Because that's the context of that other discussion. I've reconsidered and that's not how I'll respond now.
Your list is peppered with references to "gay" and I think that announces the overall assertion of gay identity politics as being something of central importance to each itemized assertion you made. That's the context, not marriage.
So before I can respond to that, I'll ask you to define your key term, gay. It's your emphasis and it's your burden in exlaining the request you made. In defining your term it will be necessary that you bring your underlying assumptions to the surface, front and center.
* * *
As for item 10, you said: "It is possible that the sun will explode tomorrow."
Tomorrow may never come. But yesterday is on the other side of sunset and tomorrow is on the other side of sunrise. No sun, no set, no rise.
"But ya gotta hang on till tomorrow. It's always a day away." Heh.
More objectively, the sun is a nuclear reactor that continually fuses hydrogen into helium. Meaning, in simple terms, the sun is a hydrogen bomb that exploded yesterday, today, and will again tomorrow.
If we limit the count of sun explosions to observable solar flares or eruptions, then, these sporadic explosions on the solar surface are unpredictable here on earth. We can only wait and see what tomorrow brings.
Assertion #10 can be read romantically or objectively. In the gaycentric context of your list, it does not seem to be nearly as bright an assertion as the constellation of "gay" references that populates the full length of your list.
In other words, assert as you will, but explain what you mean.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with R.K.'s definition (above).
Miles: > On Lawn, I refer you [...]
ReplyDeleteYou clearly don't understand the word "specifically". I asked for specifics, and you only vaguely waved your hand :)
I re-read the forward to my post, and it reads to me as responding to your points. Feel free to respond accordingly in case you misunderstood.
As for #4, what difference do you find between our assertions? Why did you single that one out in particular? Again, please be specific ....
Miles, this thread is going to quickly become a tangle of multiple discussions.
ReplyDeleteYou deferred to something RK said but he did not define your term "gay". He used a placeholder. I think the overall discussion would go better if you own your key term and explain it in your own words.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteI've seen you operate before.
If you feel unable to participate, don't participate. R.K. and Mr. Walrus somehow managed. You managed earlier today, but decided you didn't like what you came up with.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeletelet's not go down this path again. You said "specifically"; I said #4. You're being disingenuous. If your position is right, is resorting to these shenanigans really necessary?
Miles, shall I tell you who you are? You are a guest here. And me? I am among your hosts.
ReplyDeleteIf you do wish to detract the invitation to participate, which you keenly repeated thrice, for no better reason than you refuse to define your key term in your own words, then, you might reconsider the merit of your own participation, as a guest who has been extended the courtesy of a blogpost featuring your own words.
I like very much what I came up with, in the context of the marriage issue. As I said, the context of your list of assertions is quite different and, in my estimation, is not disguised by your reluctance to be forthright about that.
Again: please expalin your key term, "gay", in your own words. It is obviously of the utmost importance to each of your 9 assertions.
Chairm,
ReplyDeletebefore you go getting all high and mighty on me, please remember that this is just a blog. Any idiot with a computer can start one. Your readership is limited mainly to your fellow contributors, from what I can tell. You do me no great harm by banishing me from this, your kingdom.
When you said that "this thread is going to quickly become a tangle of multiple discussions," that wasn't your fear; it was your goal. "Gay" was your starting place; "couple" was next. And on and on.
I would ask you what I asked On Lawn: if your position is so demonstrably right, why resort to such tactics?
By the way, my assertions ultimately tie in to the marriage issue--that's why we're all here, isn't it? So feel free to re-post your earlier comment, if you still have it. I'm guessing you won't, though.
P.S. How many of your grandchildren share your views regarding gay people and their place in society (assuming that you've had the guts to talk to them about something you're clearly so passionate about while operating anonymously)? Does that tell you something about the eventual outcome of this debate?
Miles,
ReplyDeleteAll I asked for you to do was to specifically say how my post was "non-responsive" to your assertions. Conveniently, your post happens to be non-responsive to my question, so let me show you how this is to be done...
You said "specifically"; I said #4
I said, "Howso? specifically... :)"
Your reply falls short in two ways.
1) Now, if I asked "where" specifically, then I could see a reference as an answer that reasonably followed the question. Still ambiguous, mind you, nothing anyone would call answering specifically where you found the problem. It was still just vague hand waving.
2) But at the end of the day, I didn't ask "where", I asked "howso?" Am I being dishonest? Did I make that switch from where to howso? No, that was clearly yourself. As I told you before, you shouldn't try to blame me for the problems in your own arguments. You were the one who called the whole response "non-responsive". It would be up to you to show how there was no "responsive" part in that comment.
So lets take this point by point...
1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
Now I also note that you are trying to say Chairm didn't respond. I think you are running from something ... like the subject -- again.
But hey, this is your guest post. I'm happy to let you talk all you want. I'm also happy to take this tangent with you because as this is your guest post, people will easily judge you have nothing but games to offer behind it. You've had four responses, don't discount any of them. They all agreed your use of the term "gay" was ambiguous and set to assert their own version of your comment there. Don't pretend they are that different :)
Miles,
ReplyDeleteBanishment? I appealed to your better nature to behave according to your being a guest at the kitchen table. How you conduct yourself is up to you. And on the record.
I'll ask again.
Each item in your list of nine assertions uses the term, gay, and by your emphasis this is key to your request. And to your claimed curiosity.
Please explain this key term in your own words.
If you defer to placeholders used by others, then, expect the discussion to become entangled in multiple directions.
It is your inquiry, and your key term, and your responsiblity to explain yourself. Otherwise you are not cooperating with people you said you were keen to hear from.
"... people will easily judge ..."
ReplyDeleteWhat people are you talking about? Mr. Walrus? Marty? I can only imagine that they're as tired of your petty gamesmanship as I am--probably more so, since I've only just met you.
I've gotten just about what I expected out of my query. I thank the Playful Walrus and R.K. for their forthrightness, and Op-Ed for his silence.
I also appreciate the conversation I had with Marty yesterday; I would have liked to have gotten his response to my list, but as I crafted it with that conversation in mind, I believe I already have a pretty good sense of his views on the matter. I found his argument for prohibiting gay couples from marrying to be valid, if not sound. (I note in passing that the Playful Walrus's response to #9 would seem to indicate that I am not alone in questioning at least one of Marty's premises.)
miles: ...and Op-Ed for his silence.
ReplyDeleteHappy to oblige. Among its many flaws, chief is that your list is completely irrelevant. It serves only as an example of how narcissistic gay identity politics are. Supporters try to make every discussion about themselves.
It's like having an Amway salesman at a dinner party. Once he starts talking about Amway it's time to go join another conversation.
Miles: > I can only imagine that they're as tired of your petty gamesmanship
ReplyDeleteMore like, you are desperately hoping that pointing out your dishonesty in tactics like moving the goal posts might be confused with playing games myself, if you accuse me of it enough :)
I have no doubt they want to see you do something substantial. You, who started this post with assertions, and then started making arbitrary and petty judgments to dismiss certain replies.
I'll ask as much as is needed, you can run forever, but not without looking like you are running forever :)
So lets take this point by point again...
1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
Now I also note that you are trying to say Chairm didn't respond. I think you are running from something ... like the subject -- again.
But hey, this is your guest post. You've had four responses, don't discount any of them. They all agreed your use of the term "gay" was ambiguous and set to assert their own version of your comment there. Don't pretend they are that different :)
So feel free to tell me how my response was non-responsive, an accusation you made, not me...
Miles, your list of assertions appeared in the following context.
ReplyDeletePlayful Walrus put up a blogpost in which he explained the obvious difference that coitus makes in the context of the marriage issue.
To provide contrast to the societal significance of coitus, he used the example of the all-male same-sex pairing.
Whatever sexual behavior such a pairing might engage in "does not allow them to contribute to society in any positive way that they couldn't have without ever touching each other."
His conclusion remains unrefuted by "anyone [who'd] effectively argue that same-sex pairing is as beneficial to society as marriage."
I'll add that the SSM campaign switches back and forth between 1) the demand that society take full regard of sexual attraction and sexual behavior as being of the utmost importance and 2) the alternate demand that society disregard the very same as utterly irrelevant.
So PW's emphasis on societal contribution and outcome is directly on point. If you think not, you can return to that discussion and explain.
* * *
Your list of assertions here must depend on the meaning you intended for your key term, "gay".
By your refusal to use your own words, and by your deferral to RK's placeholder, you have taken off the table any future attempt by yourself to dispute it as merely a placeholder.
It is now confirmed as your intended meaning. You accept it is completely fitting the purpose of each and every assertion you have listed.
In each instance RK's placeholder is now transformed into the meaning you own. In other words, you no longer have the option to pin it on RK nor to corral it as insufficient.
RK offered it as a placeholder for his purposes in reply. He is under no obligation to limit himself to that placeholder the way that you are now obligated to your confirmed intended meaning.
However, to be fair, I'll ask once again: Please explain this key term in your own words.
As I said before, I'm fine with R.K.'s definition of "gay" for present purposes. The only elaboration perhaps necessary is that a "gay couple," as I use that term, comprises two gay people of the same sex who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually. A gay man and a lesbian can already marry each other in California if they wish, so context should have sufficed to make my meaning clear to all but the most deliberately obtuse.
ReplyDeleteRK did not define "gay"; he used a placeholder to make it possible to provide a response to your unstipulated use of the term.
ReplyDeleteYou've indicated now that you consider that placeholder as the definition of your key term; and that this is your own confirmed definition.
Check.
If you are not already preparing to dodge, then, you can add clarification:
1. What are your purposes, at present?
2. What context?
Thanks.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteyou are intentionally testing my patience. As said earlier, I've seen you operate before; that's what you do.
My purposes are mine to know and yours, evidently, to fear. As for your #2--well, that's just more of your typical #2, if you catch my meaning.
I will enable you no further. My next reply to you will be me either thanking you for your thoughtful response or sharing with you a favorite poem of mine.
Miles, your lack of clarity is a test of patience.
ReplyDeleteYou said there is context and that you have purposes. When asked, you pose as one feared rather than as one fearful to cooperate with someone whose participation you had requested a few times. That may puff up your pride but it does not faciliate the process you began here.
Assert as you will, but explain what you mean. Communication is not one-way. Do your part and I'll do mine.
Your context? Your purposes? This will help with making my response to your inquiry.
Miles,
ReplyDeleteIt is not out of place for Chairm to seek clarity, nor is it your rightful place to tell someone their search to understand your position is invalid. Mutual understanding is something we all seek here, it is the end-goal of all of our conversations. When you short circuit it, and with childish insults to boot, it is within your liberty to do so but you can't imagine that it makes you look like a credible voice in this debate.
When you asked questions of Opine, I am happy to put them on the front page because Chairm, and others here are credible voices in the debate. You are too, if you are truly seeking for both sides to understand each other.
It is only a display of your rudeness and ego-centric thinking to claim he operates to annoy you or anyone else. Paranoid much?
His points are valid questions, you can hide your purpose and context all you want but as I mentioned at This is Marriage, it shows just how little faith you have in your opinions.
I'll note that my questions are to help craft appropriate responses to your inquiry also. I gave a reply, you called it non-responsive. How can we learn what you are looking for if you act with such shady purpose and evasive arbitration.
Miles, for your sake as well as ours, allow me underline how arbitrary and even contradictory you have been on the responses to your first point alone.
ReplyDeleteHere are two responses to #1, these are the complete responses.
"Some people experience same-gender attraction"
and...
"I believe some people have attractions to the same sex."
Now, here is the important part. The first you called was part of a post that you called "non-responsive" as a whole. The second was part of a post you mentioned as an example to Chairm of the kind of participation you are looking for.
So how does that work, please let us all know. This is also relevant to your discussion with Chairm, as it is a third response to #1 that you accepted as "fine" for "present purposes" but includes the very same caution that you balked at Chairm raising (emphasis added by myself)...
"We get into trying to define just what "gay" means, which gets problematic. But I'll phrase it this way: Whatever the cause or reason, some people strongly feel sexually attracted to their own gender and not the opposite gender. True."
So allow me to go point for point how you have come up with your judgment that my response was "non-responsive". I fully intend to go through all 10 before we are through. Plug your ears and start soothing yourself with poems in the corner, if you must but I believe you'll find that doesn't come across as subjective and credible as you might wish it to be :) So here goes...
1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
But hey, this is your guest post. You've had four responses, don't discount any of them. They all agreed your use of the term "gay" was ambiguous and set to assert their own version of your comment there. Don't pretend they are that different :)
OZYMANDIAS
ReplyDeleteI met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
--Percy Bysshe Shelley
Plug your ears and start soothing yourself with poems in the corner, if you must but I believe you'll find that doesn't come across as subjective and credible as you might wish it to be :) So here goes...
ReplyDelete1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
But hey, this is your guest post. You've had four responses, don't discount any of them. They all agreed your use of the term "gay" was ambiguous and set to assert their own version of your comment there. Don't pretend they are that different :)
Bottom line: I had hoped to discuss the implications of allowing (or not allowing) gay couples to marry, but On Lawn and Chairm were more interested in discussing the discussion. Arguing semantics is fine, but at a certain point it becomes diversionary. Anyone familiar with Chairm's "work" knows that this is his preferred tactic; after a week with On Lawn, I can see that he and Chairm are cut from the same cloth. Both revel in wasting others' time. They'll get no more of mine.
ReplyDeleteSorry Miles, seems we (or maybe I'm the only one to blame) let you down for whatever purpose you had here.
ReplyDeleteI mean I like to think that if you want to discuss points, or think I've left any point on the ground I'm happy to reply to it. Just point out where, and how I failed. If you want to talk meta-discussion, I'm happy to meet you on that playground also.
But come to think of it, you did claim I left points on the ground. You said my response was "non-responsive". So in the spirit of your comment, to get back to the point, I'm happy to ask this question...
1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
Huh, I wonder why you think we dropped the ball in this discussion. No matter, we can also put behind us just how dishonest and contradictory you were in your dismissals). Wait... you really did that?
Never mind. Lets make it a new day, and meet the points head on this time.
The question I've offered many times in this thread is your invitation to start talking to the points you raised, and the judgement you've made already based on the responses.
You have a front page post. That kind of hospitality isn't that common. If you want to share poetry, perhaps that is what you feel is on topic now? Here's my contribution...
(continued...)
Their first touch at seventeen was in the park
ReplyDeleteAnd the moon was full
She was beautiful to him
And her hair was long and her eyes were blue
And her skin was warm
And she turned to him
And he thought he knew what love was
Another touch at twenty-two on their wedding night
And the stars were bright
She was beautiful to him
And her hair smelled sweet and her lips were full
And her skin was warm
And she turned to him
And he thought he knew what love was
And then again at twenty-five when the baby came
And the sun was high
She was beautiful to him
And her hair was damp and her fingers shook
And her skin was warm
And she turned to him
And he thought he knew what love was
Later on at fifty-four sitting on the porch
All the children gone
She was beautiful to him
And her hair was gray and her forehead lined
And her skin was warm
And she turned to him
And he thought he knew what love was
Their last touch at eighty-five was by her bed
And the moon was full
She was beautiful to him
And her hair was thin and her eyes were closed
And her skin was cold
And she turned to him
And he knew that he knew what love was
After sixty eight years of laughter and tears
He knew that he knew what love was.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemiles: ...you are intentionally testing my patience. ... My purposes are mine to know and yours, evidently, to fear. ... I will enable you no further. ... sharing with you a favorite poem of mine.
ReplyDeleteWow. Every single sentence in your comment included some form of reference to yourself. Way to confront the whole narcissism thing head on.
Bottom line: I had hoped to discuss the implications of allowing (or not allowing) gay couples to marry, but On Lawn and Chairm were more interested in discussing the discussion.
Translation: miles was going to make a point, but Chairm and On Lawn have already refuted it so now he's going to hurl accusations at them instead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his self-described impatient reaction, Miles has hinted that at least one of his purposes is "to discuss the implications of allowing (or not allowing) gay couples to marry."
ReplyDeleteThere, again he has placed emphasis on "gay".
If there are implications, these would arise from an assumed importance of "gay" in the assumed substitution of the meaning of marriage. That is the immediate context of the list of assertions.
* * *
SSM argumentation begins with the contention, as does Miles, that the word marriage, is up for grabs, and that its meaning must become as vague as the gaycentric SSM idea.
In a rhetorical sleight of hand, Miles used the word, marry, to embed into his assertions the change that is in dispute. Whether that was inadvertent or deliberate doesn't matter here.
Miles has confessed that he feels his patience is tested with what he would call arguing semantics. No such argument was made on my part, but inquiry was made of Miles' emphasis -- an emphasis that is unmistaken and undisputed and presented in his only stated purpose. His admission in that regard is commendable.
Yet, as he said of arguing semantics, "at a certain point it becomes diversionary."
As it happens, that point in the discussion is reached when attention turns to his own key term, its context, and his purposes in polling others on his list of assertions.
Discussing his request was misunderstood by Miles as "discussing the discussion".
* * *
I think that list can serve a useful purpose in discussing the implications of substituting the SSM idea for the marriage idea.
And, given Miles own definition of "gay", that list can be discussed in its context, which is the assertion of identity politics as central to the proferred justification for the SSM idea.
As time allows, I'll add more later.
Mile has said that his list of assertions has an immediate context and purpose(s); but he has indicated that he does not wish to discuss that context and those purposes.
ReplyDeleteSo I'll respond in the context and to the purpose derived from PW's blogpost to which Miles had responded by presenting his list of assertions in a comment.
On Lawn extended the courtesy of promoting that list to a guest blogpost. As a matter of housekeeping, I've presaged my response to the list by recounting the lack of clear explanation from Miles.
See my comment under the original blogpost by Playful Walrus, here.
continued...
As a courtesy to On Lawn, who put up this guest blogpost, and to Opiners who gave their responses, and to our readers, and to Miles, here is my own response to the list of assertions for which he has asked for feedback.
ReplyDeleteMiles has made explicit his definition of his key term, gay, which is repeated throughout his list of nine assertions. He pointed to sexual attraction. Some people feel sexually attracted to their own sex; some feel this strongly; some also do not feel sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
I'll refer to them as same-sex attracted, or SSA for short.
He also referred to "gay marriage" which, as noted earlier, is a disputed phrase. Under whatever guise, this means a registration of the same-sex relationship or, as per Miles' gay definition, this means registration of the SSA relationship. [Footnote]
With the appropriate clarifications, this is what I think about Miles' list of assertions.
ReplyDelete* * *
The context for this list of assertions is derived from Playful Walrus' blogpost in which he said that "coitus, and by extension marriage (in addition to other reasons), benefits society in ways that same-sex pairing can't."
The purpose here, also from PW's blogpost, is to address the point that whatever a same-sex pairing might engage in sexually "does not allow them to contribute to society in any positive way that they couldn't have without ever touching each other."
Given this context and purpose, is each item an assertion of a positive contribution to society that depends on male-only or female-only sexual contact? I'll respond with "check" if the answer is yes.
Also, is each assertion false? Is it misleading? It is irrelevant? Is it speculative?
1. Some people experience same-sex attraction (SSA).
True and irrelevant.
2. Some SSA live together; some also engage in sexual behavior together; some have registered relationships with the government.
True and irrelevant.
3. SSA who live together are prohibited from registering their relationship with the government in California.
False and misleading and irrelevant.
4. SSA are not prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California.
True, misleading, and irrelevant. Note that no one-sexed scenario can create children.
5. Tens of thousands of children are being raised by SSA people in California alone.
Speculative and, if true also misleading and irrelevant.
6. [I]t is almost certainly true that SSA people and their children would benefit by registering relationships with the same status as marriage.
Speculative, misleading, and irrelevant.
7. There is no guarantee that California's prohibition against SSA people registering their relationships will ever be lifted.
False and misleading and irrelevant. (Guarantee? Prohibition? Lifted?)
8. Whether SSA people can register their relationships in California has no effect on the legal capacity of SSA people "to become parents" through adoption or IVF/ART.
True, misleading, and irrelevant.
9. It is possible that some SSA people in California are waiting "to become parents" until they are legally allowed to register their relationships with the government.
Speculative, misleading, and irrelevant. Also includes a falsehood.
* * *
Not one of these items is an assertion of a positive contribution to society that is enabled by male-only or female-only sexual contact.
For example, whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually does not cause someone "to become a parent". Sexual attraction doesn't do it, either. Same goes for outcomes and benefits for children. Same goes for registration with the government.
I do think that with these assertions Miles is asking what SSMers almost inevitably ask: SSA exist so what are you going to do about that and for them?
Asking such a question does not refute PW's blogpost. Which was supposed to be the context and the purpose here.
While I've tried to be thorough, Op-ed's previous remarks in response to Miles pretty much sums it up already.
* * *
Footnote:
Note that same-sex sexual attraction, if it is itself a contribution to society, is something that can be contributed without people ever touching.
However, to give a generous reading, we can assume that sexual attraction is sometimes proxy for same-sex sexual behavior, for the sake of discussing at least some of the items on this list of assertions. And we can leave as undecided whether or not such behavior is itself a positive contribution to society.
I believe the whole point of Miles's list was to try to demonstrate that the likelihood of #9 was somehow no more likely than #10, and thus to dismiss any argument that with SSM more children are going to be raised either without a mother or without a father.
ReplyDeleteIn doing so, he must dismiss the idea that there is any psychological or social sense of an uplift (even only temporary) on same-sex couples from SSM. Yet isn't this belief in a psychological uplift one of the big reasons we hear as to why SSM should be legalized? Does Miles not think there will be such an uplift? (For the record, yes, I agree there will be such an uplift, but don't believe it will be permanent, either individually or culturally speaking).
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in what you mean by "uplift." Could you elaborate?
Also, though it's not true that "the whole point of [my] list was . . . to demonstrate that . . . #9 was [] no more likely than #10," it is true that the list's genesis was in the conversation I had with Marty about whether there is any reason to believe that allowing gay couples to marry would lead to more children being raised without a mother or a father. So your assessment of the context in which my list was offered is correct, whereas Chairm's is not; but Chairm already knew that.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteto borrow a phrase, I found your "response" to be "[s]peculative, misleading, and irrelevant." Like On Lawn before you, you did not want to respond to my list of assertions, so you replaced it with a list of your own creation (see, for example, my #3 and your #3).
As noted above in my response to R.K., you misrepresented the context in which my list was offered, in order to skirt the questions it posed. That you found every one of my assertions to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand is a pretty clear indication that you were not participating in the discussion I initiated.
You will likely now blame your sidestepping on me, for my supposed refusal to elucidate the context for you. However, the context in which my list was offered was plain enough for the Playful Walrus and R.K. (and even On Lawn, for that matter); and truth be told, it was plain enough for you as well. You are simply seeking to manufacture confusion by misappropriating the term "context" as I first raised it: I said that the meaning of one of my terms was made clear by its context (i.e., the rest of the list); ever since, you have been calling into question the context of the list itself (i.e., the broader conversation in which the list was offered).
Still, I thank you, Chairm, for taking the time to comment as you did. Although you didn't address the assertions I offered, you did provide an excellent example of your evasiveness.
Miles: > "Like On Lawn before you, you did not want to respond to my list of assertions, so you replaced it with a list of your own creation"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this double standard of yours was already exposed. You are not being honest about which people are responding or not, you seem to have an ulterior ambition here.
So since you continue to claim people are dodging your point, I will continue asking you how...
1) "Some people experience same-gender attraction". Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Some people are gay". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant by gay as an identity.
You can keep making the claim, but your inability to support it under even the most basic scrutiny, is speaking volumes.
Miles, you've been wasting people's time here. Why did you not make clear your purpose and the context, when asked? Because you were always fearful and ready to dodge about.
ReplyDelete* * *
Now you suddenly discover that the unarticulated purpose you had in mind all along was to compare just the last two assertions.
What a crock.
I responded to #10 waaaay upthread. And my response to #9 is on point.
You asked for speculation. You asked for speculation on unverifiable personal motivation. You asked for speculation on present and future actions based on a misleading premise. You asked for speculation on actions while injecting a falsehood into all of that.
The comparison of #9 and #10 is irrelevant, anyway.
I frankly don't think the comparison can be saved by filtering out the speculative and misleading parts; all that would be left is the falsehood.
So you have now demonstrated that you are doing the usual pro-SSM shtick of throwing all kinds of stuff at the wall and hoping that some bits will stick. But all it takes is turning the garden hose on your "curiosity" and the whole mess dissolves and washes away.
Miles,
ReplyDeleteYou asked: "Anybody else find fault with any of the 10 assertions offered above?"
That has been answered. Stick a fork in it.
* * *
You taunted me upthread with a creepy remark about my grandchildren and also about my name. I let it slide, at the time, out of courtesy to others who contribute here.
Your fantasy does not reflect reality, but your remark clearly shows you to be beneath contempt. Until your behavior improves, consider yourself ignored as irrelevant.
* * *
To Opiners and our readership,
I recommend that all Opiners and our readership take a look at that taunt and ask yourself if this exercise has been worth that. Be generous with Miles, if you feel inclined.
Almost every one of my grandchildren has read it and all will in time. Not one has merely shrugged. Not one would have Miles at their kitchen table.
See 3/03/2010 10:19:00 PM.
Given his rapid resort to such an unprovoked taunt, based solely on his fantasies about those of us here and our kids, ask yourself if Miles is a worthy participant in discussion of serious matters here. Would you have him at your kitchen table again?
I would not. I say that as someone who has experienced the face-to-face encounters with such individuals, over the years, and with the understanding that their bluster shrinks when forthrightly challenged. In the blogosphere we encounter through pixels -- and how we deal with such behavior is shaped by this media.
I think he has shown himself unworthy of a seat at my kitchen table -- virtual or otherwise. He made the worst of a guest blogpost, of all things. Unless I was keen to pummel in debate such a poorly armed protagonist, I would not seek him out for a face-to-face encounter in a public forum. Nor would I consider an invitation from him. I'm not keen to humiliate such a person in any forum. So on all possible means of encounter, no, he is not worthy, I think. He is someone best left to beating his drum at angry protests.
His comments have shown Miles to be an intellectually dishonest participant in a discussion of something he brought to us and requested our participation on our blogsite. That's not why he is unworthy but it shows his limitations.
His childish taunt was a direct attempt to slur and to provoke an intemperate reaction -- it missed the mark by a very longshot, as some who know something of me and my family may already know.
But I bring this to the fore now because, with every extended courtesy, Miles has shown himself less and less worthy of anything more than abrupt and dismissive wave the hand. Despite ample opportunity, he did not rise above his creepy remark about my grandchildren and my name. It has not be retracted.
In my view, and in the normal course of things, and with no improvement in his behavior, this online persona, "Miles", merits no more than to be ignored. Make your own judgements, of course. I've made mine.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeletestart with #4 and #5. Then you can go back to #1 if you wish.
Sure Miles, lets start with #5 then.
ReplyDelete5. Tens of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, a majority of which are in non-romantic bonds of mutual support and commitment though their relationship would not be considered "gay", in California alone. Still others form small groups of mutual assistance, consisting of two men or women (related or not) who band together to raise their children together. A woman living with an elderly couple (related or not).
Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion that, "Tens of thousands of children are being raised by gay couples in California alone". I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive. Go ahead, tell all of us if my response affirms or contradicts yours. I can guess, but only you know the details of what you meant.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteread more closely. It is not true that "the unarticulated purpose [I] had in mind all along was to compare just the last two assertions."
You are hurting your own credibility now.
Oh, Chairm.
ReplyDeleteYou're not having your way with me as you normally do with others, and you're getting frustrated. The remark that you now cite as your reason for leaving the arena was made three days ago; evidently it turned "creepy" at some point since then--like the moment you realized that your usual tactics were proving unavailing.
And I like how you wove the words "fantasies" and "kids" together, so as subtly to raise the specter of sexual predation.
I read your little introductory post the other night--the one where you talked about how you're Catholic and have kids, grandkids, and a growing brood of great-grandkids, even. So I knew that your grandkids are adults--young adults that, statistically, are likely to disagree with the views you spout here. That's what I was curious about: whether your own family bares witness to you of the ultimate failure of your campaign.
I also know that one of your contributors--Jose, if memory serves--grew up in New York and plays (the cello was it?). Is he the one who lives with his wife and kids in the house he designed on the Pacific Ocean? I remember you said something about a (poolside?) barbecue.
And I know that On Lawn is mormon (I'd asked him before if he was a Christian--he steadfastly refused to answer--so that was interesting to learn), and that his kids were (are?) being raised by their grandparents while his wife had serious health issues. If I was really as bad as you say that I am, I would have thrown that back in his face at some point in the conversation, when he was insulting my reading comprehension or questioning my honesty or just generally jerking me around.
It was quite an honor to have YOU accuse ME of wasting people's time, Chairm.
I'll tell you what creepy is... Creepy is miles keeping a running tab on all these personal stories that sometimes slip by in comments and blog posts...
ReplyDeleteChirms family is not statistically likely to disagree that children need mothers & fathers or that marriage is a male/female position.
You just so story is based on polls that can be subverted by how the question is phrased.
Your rant above is really creepy and too personal and exacting.
As I have said before your arguments are consitantly bad faith.
We have extended you every Good Will & courtesey yet you still ellide, evade & avoid direct debating points.
You twist common meanings, use bad rehtorical devices & generally argue in bad faith.
Clean it up or go else were...
Please.
On Lawn, it is possible for your assertion #5 to be true and, at the same time, for my assertion #5 to be either true or false. So, no, that does not fully affirm my assertion. Nor does it deny my assertion.
ReplyDeleteYour #5 says that "[t]ens of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, a majority of which are in non-romantic bonds of mutual support and commitment though their relationship would not be considered 'gay', in California alone." Let's assume for the sake of argument that that is true. Let's assume that there are five tens-of-thousands; so, fifty thousand children are being raised by same-sex couples in California. And a "majority" of those children are being raised by couples that "would not be considered 'gay'"; so, the possible number of children being raised by gay couples in California ranges from 1 all the way up to 24,999.
If the number is toward the low end, my assertion would not be true; if the number is toward the high end, my assertion would be true.
It took time to explain this to you--time I didn't want to have to spend, since it was you who chose to be non-responsive. Now, I'm sure you will refuse to acknowledge that I was right, and so my time will have been doubly wasted; that is how you operate, I know it, and that is what I was trying to avoid.
Now, how about #4?
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI haven't been keeping a running tab. If you look at the Archive box in what I guess is the middle column, at the bottom is a list of contributors. If you click on a name, it shows you that person's posts. There was a thread from a couple years ago, I believe, where everybody went around and told his story. I wasn't snooping. Just reading.
So the next time that Renee gets bold and signs her full name to a post, if you don't want people to know that you live in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan, don't write that you live in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. You don't get points for being bold if you're just going to get upset when others observe what you've done.
miles (aka. Ronald J. Jenkins): You don't get points for being bold if you're just going to get upset when others observe what you've done....
ReplyDeleteGood advice, Ronnie. Let's face it. When you're on the internet, you're not in Kansas anymore. You never know what Curly, Moe, or Lawrence might come along and read what you wrote.
A corollary to that good advice would be never to post others' personal information on the internet for them, even if they might have posted it themselves at some point.
I knew I could count on you, Op-Ed. I'll be waiting for you. :)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Ronnie is my dad. All of my friends call me J. And you can call me the guy that came in and wiped the floors with "you all."
miles: I'm interested in what you mean by "uplift." Could you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteNo, because you already know what I mean, and you know it argues against the contention you were trying so hard to defend (that there is no reason to believe that legalizing SSM would result in more children being raised without a parent of each gender).
But now you're reacting the way people who know they've lost react. At this point, elaboration becomes unnecessary.
Ronnie: All of my friends call me J.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant.
And you can call me the guy that came in and wiped the floors with "you all."
Going after someone's grandkids is not the action of someone who thought they could make points legitimately. But since you are heading for the exits (again) anyway, why don't you prove me wrong and point out all the legitimate points you have raised.
Go ahead. Number them if you have any.
Yes very creepy indeed... It reminds me of the same thing that happened with the "fannie's Room crowd" - remember culturologist: the academic who Fannie & Co. started into about his wife who happened to be on his Blog?
ReplyDeleteIts just creepy to have done research on the personal lives culled from past posts and use them...a level of formality and distance is expected.
One realizes that Miles constant evasions and failed arguments must be getting to hium.
He has now started personal affronts and declared a sort of faux victory..
Sad...
Fitz,
ReplyDeleteActually, what it reminds me of is the Know Thy Neighbor website in Massachusetts and the various maps of Prop. 8 supporters posted on the internet in California. Personal intimidation is what neutered marriage supporters always resort to. Ronnie is simply more of the same. It tells us a lot about what is really behind the movement to neuter marriage.
Miles: So, no, that does not fully affirm my assertion. Nor does it deny my assertion.
ReplyDeleteBut neither does that make it non-responsive.
So, in short, listing couples as "same-sex couples" (like on a census, etc...) does not necessarily give you definitive data on gay couples.
It is why I can neither fully confirm or deny your assertion, either.
Okay, now on to #4, take it away... you know the drill.
On Lawn @ 2:44pm:
ReplyDelete"Does that, or does that not fully affirm your assertion . . . ? I think you can guess as to whether or not that affirms or conflicts with your assertion. If so that wasn't non-responsive."
On Lawn @ 8:51pm:
"Miles: 'So, no, that does not fully affirm my assertion. Nor does it deny my assertion.'
But neither does that make it non-responsive."
What sort of Orwellian world are you operating in, On Lawn?
As for #4, all I need do is place the two--mine and yours--side by side:
Me: "Gay couples/individuals are not prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California."
You: "Adoption is a means to restore to a child what was taken away through neglect, disability, inability, or death. Namely a mother and father hopefully committed by marriage. Care needs to be taken so that adoption doesn't turn into a sort of legal receipt for a child-trade. In other news, individuals, couples and triads recognized by the state in a mutually trusting and committed relationship should not be barred from being foster parents, same-sex or both sexed."
Is there anything in your statement that speaks to whether "[g]ay couples/individuals are [] prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California"? If not, your statement was non-responsive to mine.
And that's fine in and of itself; I said as much initially. However, you sought to make an issue out of me calling your "response" non-responsive--which we now see that it was. So here we are, off on a tangent, a tangent you admitted you were "happy to take," because it was one of your own making, designed to draw attention away from the ridiculousness of your claims that allowing gay couples to marry will harm society. As I've stated often enough, I expected no different from some of you here; for the rest of you, I'm disappointed that you feel content to sit silent and let this sort of foolishness pass for debate. It does you no credit to be associated with the likes of these.
miles: It does you no credit to be associated with the likes of these.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Ronnie. You lost the ability to credibly claim indignation when you went after Chairm's grandchildren.
Have you no shame, Op-Ed? You will say absolutely anything, won't you? Anyone that can read can see that you have no regard for the truth; I have gone after no one's grandchildren. All you've done since our first encounter is throw mud. I will admit that there have been times when I responded harshly, but never unfairly.
ReplyDeleteNo miles you have no shame...that is clear. We have argued through the years with some very astute and capable advocates of same-sex "marriage".
ReplyDeleteYou dont even come close...
You have gone after grandchildren and multiple posters on this blog...
Its just creepy to have done research on the personal lives culled from past posts and use them...a level of formality and distance is expected.
furthermore your posts are a self countradictory muddle. You simply dont even know what logic or good faith is..
miles: Anyone that can read can see that you have no regard for the truth;
ReplyDeleteAnyone who can read can see you are lying. You clearly tried to drag Chairm's grandchildren into this discussion.
"P.S. How many of your grandchildren share your views..."
You get even worse, but that's where it started. This sort of personal intimidation is typical when your side of the debate loses. Witness the naked aggression when your side lost the Prop 8 debate in California, for example.
I have gone after no one's grandchildren.
If you're going to lie about what you've said, you should at least delete the offending posts first, Ronnie.
All you've done since our first encounter is throw mud.
More lies. Too bad covering that one up would take more deleting than you're capable of.
As to your legitimacy in this discussion, I'll just highlight your own response:
Me: ...prove me wrong and point out all the legitimate points you have raised.
You: [crickets chirping]
Miles: > What sort of Orwellian world are you operating in, On Lawn?
ReplyDeleteActually it is a very logical world. There is a logical construct sometimes represented with "iff", meaning "if and only if".
You can say X is true "if" Y is true. That means every time Y is true, X is also. However X can be true even if Y is false, and an additional rigor must be applied to show if Y is false, X is false also. Then, X is directly a one to one logical mapping to Y, then you can say that X is true if and only if Y is true.
What you presented is not a logical contradiction. If you can affirm or deny, then it is responsive, but not "iff". You found a case where an answer was responsive even if it was non-conclusive because you found that your response could not be determined because "gay" is not "iff" same-sex.
You didn't discover a contradiction, you found exactly how my response is "responsive". Or I can put it another way. We both could not be conclusive on the other's assertion, my response is non-responsive "iff" yours was non-responsive.
But of course I'm not in the game of denying inconvenient arguments. Your answer was responsive, and so was mine. Your answer was, in fact, the very discovery of the problem I have with your assertion.
I'll reply to your reply to #4 later.
Miles, before going to #4, it is sufficient to show that one of the answers was responsive to show you were wrong in your dismissal.
ReplyDeleteWe've already shown that for #5, and you also know it is true for #1. In fact on #1 we've already pinned you on trying to contradict yourself on that.
So while I'm happy to move on to the points, it should be noted that you've already been proven wrong about my answers being non-responsive.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeletedoes a person's every appendage have to be damaged for him to be injured? Your #1 is indistinguishable from the Playful Walrus's or R.K.'s #1; I've never said otherwise. I've been waiting for your exegesis of your #4 before I respond to your latest defense of your #5.
In my very first response to you, I directed your attention to #4. You've been playing games ever since.
In my very first response to you [...]
ReplyDeleteFact check...
Miles [the first response]: > On Lawn, your "response" is non-responsive, but that's okay--this isn't a court of law, so you don't have to answer directly if you don't want to.
Well, there is no mention of just one reply being non-resonsive, let alone enumerating which one.
So why are you trying to cover up your missed assertion now, with a statement that was so easy to show as false?
I should also remind you that you didn't bring up a number until I asked you how. Sorry, but pointing out that a number doesn't answer "how" is not a game. You are still trying to answer my question, how was my response (as a whole) non-responsive.
If you concede that #1 is the same as with other examples, and those other examples were responsive, then it looks like you concede that you are already wrong.
Now it is up to you to show where #5, which wasn't my choosing, it was enumerated by yourself, how that one is non-responsive.
We'll take it one at a time, remember? :)
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteI'm not letting you waste any more of my time. I told you, I'm waiting for your exegesis of your #4 before I respond to your latest defense of your #5. The order should make no difference to you. So put up or shut up.
Oh, it isn't just time you are wasting.
ReplyDeleteWhat do credit account do you think you are drawing from when you make such false statements as above? Surely there is a public trust that is diminished, but more importantly it is your personal integrity that is the most taxed.
You could have chosen to simply meet fairly on this field of discussion. Instead you stuck your heels in the ground and came up with a bunch of false-hoods to justify it.
I'm happy to discuss every single point with you, but only one at a time. You've conceded #1 is a relevant response, by virtue of you calling the same response as relevant for others. I'm only asking that you either concede #5 was also relevant, or continue the discussion on that point to its resolution before going to #4. I was ready to before, and still have the #4 response ready. But this exercise is just one at a time.
If you don't want to live with that responsibility to come to a conclusion, then that is your choice. But then I won't waste my time with diversionary points :)
You're a joke, On Lawn. Keep stalling.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I ask Miles how my post was in his words "non-responsive", and after a long thread of examples where my response was responsive, he says I'm stalling.
ReplyDeleteIf that isn't the joke Miles is making, its at least the one I'm laughing about :)
Miles, feel free at any time to back up your assertion about my post, because so far its eroding very quickly. Perhaps that is why you are trying to play a game called "projection" here...
I'm just holding you accountable for what you said. You claimed my whole response was non-responsive. Then you claimed that if pressed could show #4 and #5 as unresponsive. Now you are saying just #4 was non-responsive? Just #4? And #5 was responsive?
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteI never claimed your "whole" response was non-responsive; that is a straw man of your own invention. Why would I make such a claim when, as I've already acknowledged, your #1 is indistinguishable from others that I happily accepted? Is it your belief that I am arbitrarily picking on you? I am not. I asked you to identify which, if any, of my ten assertions you found fault with; you did not do that.
Humor me, On Lawn. You clearly are a far better dancer than I am. Go to #4 now, then let me attempt to salvage #5 for my cause afterward.
Or if you won't do that, please answer this question for me: do you agree that, in order for your #5 to be considered "responsive," it must convey one of the following messages?
A. I agree that miles's #5 is true.
B. I disagree that miles's #5 is true.
C. I am unable to agree or disagree that miles's #5 is true.
I never claimed your "whole" response was non-responsive; that is a straw man of your own invention.
ReplyDeleteOne more time from the top?
Yes you did, actually. You phrased it in the negative infinitive, or another way to think of it is you phrased it in the absolute negative. When you immediately replied that, "On Lawn, your 'response' is non-responsive" that doesn't mean part of the response wasn't responsive, that means you found no valid response in it. You didn't say "part of your response" or you didn't reply to part of the question. You said 'response' as a whole.
If you meant you found part of the response to be non-responsive, then you would have said so. But then you would either have limited it with particular language enumerating how as well as specifically where.
Is it your belief that I am arbitrarily picking on you? I am not.
Oh no, I don't think you are picking on me at all. If you ask me, you are more trying to dismiss or marginalize. And that is something you are still trying to do arbitrarily :)
I asked you to identify which, if any, of my ten assertions you found fault with; you did not do that.
Actually, that is because I cannot determine enough from your usage whether I am in contradiction or not. That is where you need to step in and say if my assertions match or do not match yours.
[...] in order for your #5 to be considered "responsive," it must convey one of the following messages?
Sure, those would be considered responsive.
Surely you agree that a number of false premises can distort whether something is agreed to or not. The logical term for such situations is "vacuously true". Where "true" is only given for the convenience of logical abstraction but does not mean it is actually true. It may still mean it is impossible to be true.
Aside from logic, we live in a world of reason where ambiguities in the language can cause people to talk at right angles with each other, seemingly agreeing when they do not, and seemingly disagreeing when they do not.
So one can say "agree" though that conclusion is a false positive. One can disagree and come to the conclusion of a false negative. That is not the same as saying "I don't know", it is much more insidious with the things you know are true, but are really wrong.
So my reply was responsive in the only way it could be meaningful and honest. There is nothing for you to fear in a call to compare and contrast what you assert as true with what I assert as true on the same measure. There we have more dimensions to discern the nature of the agreement or disagreement. Then we can say "agree", "disagree", as well as employing a meaningful charting of what points are orthogonal, ambiguous, important and unimportant to us.
That exercise is apparent in #5, which you specifically by number claimed was an example of what you found was non-responsive. Later I argued that my response was a more appropriate conclusion given the current data I have. You balked that it was not the binary agree or disagree, and have since opened up to a third option. But I don't think it is enough to say I don't know, I think it is more relevant to point out where I doubt you know, and your assertion is just a guess.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteyour #5 contains this sentence: "Tens of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, a majority of which are in non-romantic bonds of mutual support and commitment though their relationship would not be considered 'gay', in California alone." If my assertion is "just a guess," then so must this statement of yours be; for if it cannot be determined how many children are being raised by gay couples in California, it cannot be determined that the MAJORITY of same-sex couples raising children in California "would not be considered 'gay.'" (Notice, also, that when you replaced my assertion with your own, you muddied the waters a bit: I asserted something about the number of children, while you asserted something about the number of gay couples.)
Now, I'll ask you a yes-or-no question: can a person who has been able conclusively to agree or disagree with my #5 make the following statement in all sincerity?
"Tens of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, a majority of which are in non-romantic bonds of mutual support and commitment though their relationship would not be considered "gay", in California alone. Still others form small groups of mutual assistance, consisting of two men or women (related or not) who band together to raise their children together. A woman living with an elderly couple (related or not)."
Yes or no?
By the way, you must then agree that there exist same-sex couples raising children who are in no wise gay, but still very committed to each other and the children they are raising?
ReplyDeleteOr are these people a myth to you?
Answer my question and I will answer yours. That's the way this works, On Lawn.
ReplyDeleteYes. Both.
ReplyDeleteOkay, its your turn as promised...
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteI asked you: "Do you agree that, in order for your #5 to be considered 'responsive,' it must convey one of the following messages?
A. I agree that miles's #5 is true.
B. I disagree that miles's #5 is true.
C. I am unable to agree or disagree that miles's #5 is true."
You answered: "Sure, those would be considered responsive."
In my post from 3/06/2010 at 04:18:00 PM, I showed that "it is possible for your assertion #5 to be true and, at the same time, for my assertion #5 to be either true or false." In your response, you agreed that your #5 "does not fully affirm my assertion. Nor does it deny my assertion"--adding, "But neither does that make it non-responsive."
So, we have already agreed that your #5 does not convey either "A" or "B" above.
More recently, I asked you: "[C]an a person who has been able conclusively to agree or disagree with my #5 make the following statement [your #5] in all sincerity? Yes or no?"
You answered: "Yes. Both."
So, it seems we now agree that your #5 fails to convey "C" above, as well.
Now, either I have shown that you agree with me that your #5 is non-responsive, or, at the very least, I have drawn from you two more examples of how you give intentionally obscure answers to straightforward inquiries.
To answer your question: yes, I agree that "there exist same-sex couples raising children who are in no wise gay, but still very committed to each other and the children they are raising"--with the understanding that you are using a different definition of the word "couple" than the one I supplied in my assertion #2.
Now, how about #4?
Whoah!
ReplyDeleteWhat is your definition of couple? For me it is two people together, what is yours?
"It must convey one of the following messages?"
ReplyDeleteNo, you didn't catch me in that pigeon hole and even the small part of that answer shows it. I only validated that it would answer, not that those are the only options.
In fact, go read the response again. You'll find that the world is a lot more complex then you are trying to make it, which is why I prefer charting out both of our assertions in a comparison. The dynamics of that have many more dimensions to establish a better understanding with.
And that isn't obscure, by the way. You just seem to be chocking on the more sophisticated and nuanced models of reality. When the world won't give you square pegs to into your square pigeon hole :)
So, we have already agreed that your #5 does not convey either "A" or "B" above.
Ah, here your shell game goes between "could" and what I am doing. You realize It could do either, but for my purposes my belief on that "yes" or "no" is more agnostic.
So, it seems we now agree that your #5 fails to convey "C" above, as well.
Now there you have a clear fallacy. Since one can in sincerity agree, or disagree, but still say what I said (which is true since that just requires an assumption of same-sex couples large enough to still hold your values to be true). I don't make that guess, but others might on either side, and be sincere.
So in truth, it can be A, B, or C based solely on the sincere beliefs of the person giving your answer. None are ruled out. And they all depend on the observer to make.
I probably fit more in the C camp, but I think agnostic is more the term. Others could say that and be in the A or B.
Why am I agnostic? I don't see a reason why "gay" couples should discriminated in treatment among same-sex couples who are committed and have dependents they are banding together to raise.
I don't see that "gay" should be a concern at all in that decision, do you?
On Lawn,
ReplyDeletemy assertion #2 reads: "Some gay people live together as couples ('couple': two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually)." Also, at one point I elaborated on my use of the phrase "gay couple," saying that "a 'gay couple,' as I use that term, comprises two gay people of the same sex who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually." That gives you my definition of "couple."
In answering your question, I assumed that you were using the word to mean "two people together" (as you subsequently put it), absent the romantic/sexual component. It appears I was correct in my assumption.
Now, I believe we are ready for #4.
Fine, On Lawn. I have failed to demonstrate to your satisfaction that your response to my #5 was non-responsive. Now it's time for you to address, at long last, your #4.
ReplyDeleteThat gives you my definition of "couple."
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight. To you, if they are not "married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually" they are not a couple?
Here it is fresh from the time capsule...
ReplyDelete______________
Miles: > Is there anything in your statement that speaks to whether "[g]ay couples/individuals are [] prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California"?
The whole thing, actually. Try again.
"Namely a mother and father hopefully committed by marriage."
Can a same-sex couple provide that? I remember you balking that neutering marriage would encourage situations (or raise the number of situations) where there was no mother or father. It is already happening, so why wouldn't it continue if made the legal perspective on the matter?
In other words, we already see the results from how much the state already blurs that line. If it crosses it, do you really see that as reversing that trend?
Can they? It is what it is. But can they if we understood what marriage was, and consequently adoption was? I think that answer is very clear also.
"Care needs to be taken so that adoption doesn't turn into a sort of legal receipt for a child-trade."
Which is a valid concern to anyone I've talked to (maybe you are different in that regard?)
So if proper care was taken that adoption doesn't turn into a sort of legal receipt for commercializing children, would gays (or straights even) be allowed to hire someone to abandon a child as much as have it for their sake?
The last sentence also shows how this response may be inconclusive, but is very responsive to your assertion...
"In other news, individuals, couples and triads recognized by the state in a mutually trusting and committed relationship should not be barred from being foster parents, same-sex or both sexed."
You tell me, what is the difference between fostering a child, and adopting them? And what is the difference between the gay relationship, the same-sex couple relationship, an individual, and the triads of mutual support?
I can easily tell you what the difference they all have in common with a couple with both genders present that can get (and should be) married. And that is the reasonable expectation that children could be born to them in a way that doesn't raise any humanitarian concerns.
So in essence, my response reflects that legal or not is not as important a question as should or should not. And, for all of your complaining about your premises balanced against each other falling down like a house of cards, it is obviously responsive to your assertion.
On Lawn (today, in response to my #4): "Can they? It is what it is. But can they if we understood what marriage was, and consequently adoption was? I think that answer is very clear also."
ReplyDeleteEven there, you can't bring yourself to answer, simply, "Yes." Still, I would have accepted that statement as responsive two weeks ago; but that's not what you said two weeks ago.
For future reference, On Lawn, here is how you accomplish what you wanted to accomplish without being such a d-bag about it: "I agree that gay couples/individuals are not prohibited from adopting (or creating through IVF/ART) children in California; however, I do not agree that such should be the case, for the following reasons . . . ."
I asked you a simple question: Can they do it? Nothing in your original statement addressed that question. NOTHING.
Now, since I intend for this to be the last thing I ever say to you, I will answer this question of yours:
"So let me get this straight. To you, if they are not 'married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually' they are not a couple?"
On Lawn, a single word can have different meanings in different contexts. "Couple" is a good example. When someone says, "I watched a couple of movies this weekend," we understand (or at least I do) that the speaker watched two movies that weekend. Or when a retail shop owner asks his employee how many people came in to the store that day, and the employee replies, "A couple," we understand that two people came in to the store that day; they may have been together, they may have not; they may be best-friends, worst enemies, spouses, or some combination thereof; or they may have been complete strangers.
Now, On Lawn, when you and your wife are out at the movies, and the two of you run into a male friend of yours, and he is with this stunningly attractive woman that your wife has never met; and after your friend has introduced this knockout by saying, "Oh, you all haven't met. This is Jessica. Jessica, these are my friends, Mr. and Mrs. D-Bag," and then everyone has said their "good-bye"s and "enjoy the movie"s; when, as Jessica and your friend walk away, your wife turns to you and says quietly, "She seems nice; are they a couple?", do you ask your wife, "A couple of what?"
Actually, you probably do.
Sure, Miles. I'll let you have the last word on that then :)
ReplyDelete