quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
posted
Tern, I guess from my perspective there really isn't a lot of (if there is any) scientific evidence to oppose SSM. To say that there is evidence but it is not being acknowledged is too much like starting with a theory and setting out to "prove" it is true. Even if you believe that is the case, it is very unscientific and you can't have much of a discussion about it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern, there are also some fairly valid religious reasons for supporting SSM or at least civil unions. It seems to me that every person who uses Scripture (in particular) to call for a ban is using some portions of God's word and ignoring others. This is especially true of Christians who, in the New Testament, have plenty of messages in there about love and refraining from judgement, and even stuff about separating government from religion and vice versa (depending on how one reads it, of course).
We do have trouble talking to one another if, included in the religious discussion, there's also an appeal to authority (the Pope, the LDS prophet(s) and so on) because authority to one person is "just another human" to everyone else. The words that bind one person are little better than noise to the person who is not a co-religionist (if they hear them at all).
This stuff doesn't JUST boil down to arguments between religious and non-religious people. It also includes religious people trying to find a valid secularly-based argument to support their views, and religious people trying to convince each other that one appeal to authority has merit where another does not. AND THEN there are the faith-based arguments. And the arguments based on vague concerns for the future of society. And the arguments based on what little data are out there.
I submit that we CAN stop talking past each other if we do a few things:
1) Listen and try to address the other person's points in a language they WILL understand.
2) Admit when our positions are based on something other than hard facts.
3) Admit, further, when we are taking a position out of vague fears that have nothing to do with our religion, faith, or whatever, and are just "gut."
All of that is really difficult to do. I think some religious folks have it hardest because they are not in the habit of separating out Scriptural arguments from faith-based ones, from appeals to authority. It all comes under one giant heading of "belief" for some among us. In that context, a negative statement about any one piece of it threatens the entire structure and seems like an attack on a person's faith. Never comfortable.
I submit, however, that 99% of the time, the attack is in the person's own head and it's precisely because they aren't looking at the separate aspects of their own opinions, and view it ONLY as a monolithic entity.
That other 1% of the time, however, there really are personal attacks going on. Right here in River City! And that spells TROUBLE.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
I guess as long as righteousness is covered by a multi-billion dollar defense budget.... How's that go? God is always on the side of he who has the biggest guns? Something like that.
Well, I suppose things are different now. We believe God was on America's side during the revolutionary war up to WWII. Since then, all wars haven't really been about US soil (except maybe the 9/11 attack--but this thread is about SSM, so we don't need to even discuss that one).
Anyway, I can't think of a single non-religious reason against SSM. And since my opposition to it is centered on religions values, I don't want to try to hide them behind non-religions reasons, because then they are easily debunked.
I could go both ways on whether or not the government should ban it. I don't think government should make religious laws. In the Book of Mormon as much is said when a prophet decides the people need to be preached to. That is, it would be better to try to preach to gay people than make laws against them. Although that sounds funny in todays context.
On the other hand, I remember an article by OSC where he said the prohibition "worked". It worked at breaking the habit of Americans from going to the pub and then going home and beating their wifes, a habit we picked up from England, and a habit they still have (I think that is what he said). I don't know how true that statement is, but it could support banning SSM. Then again, I don't really see SSM people beating their.... partner. So maybe it doesn't apply.
I think the thing that will really piss people off if SSM is made legal is when gay's get the right to adopt children.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In many states gay people can adopt children. Unsurprisingly, their children grow up just as well adjusted as everybody elses.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I would only caution that there IS real value in building up expertise in an area before making assumptions or drawing conclusions based on data analyses. It often turns out that today's startling or important result is due to factors that the reasearchers failed to consider, like differential reporting rates.
Anyone wishing to compare rates of spousal abuse today versus the 1950's would do well to make the effort to understand reporting rates for this crime during the two decades and attempt to adjust the numbers before running analyses and drawing conclusions.
The other thing to ALWAYS consider is denominator effects. It turns out that many assumptions go into the making of your typical denominator in a rate published by the government. It's not enough to know how much under-reporting one could expect in the two decades of interest (that would affect the numerator, of course). One also needs to know that the denominator was collected/estimated the same exact way for both decades of interest.
The point is that if one were to compare statistics compiled in the 1950's with statistics compiled in the 1990's, both the numerator and denominator may have changed operational definition, and the numerator may have a different level of under-reporting.
It is at least worth considering that sloppy research could produce data that support ones pet hypothesis (or someone's pet hypothesis) and not stop digging just because the answer fits the conclusion one is hoping to draw.
Too many researchers fail to do this. They leave it to others to correct their flawed work. Sadly, there is often a publication bias against publishing negative results or failures to replicate. The end result being that stuff that "shocks" or seems "newsworthy" gets published and the countering data rarely sees the light of day.
It has happened plenty of times in my own field (traffic safety and experimental psychology). In areas where the data are likely to be less reliable (like old data from crime reports), I suspect the problems are even more prevalent.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then?
And if you had read my vegan social metaphor, I would ask "what legal freedoms were being violated by say a new come guest eating a BLT in front of the other guests?"
Well, I did read your metaphor, and still I asked the question. Perhaps that implies that your metaphor didn't answer the question for me. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, I remember an article by OSC where he said the prohibition "worked". It worked at breaking the habit of Americans from going to the pub and then going home and beating their wifes, a habit we picked up from England, and a habit they still have (I think that is what he said). I don't know how true that statement is, but it could support banning SSM. Then again, I don't really see SSM people beating their.... partner. So maybe it doesn't apply.
I don't know that you could reasonably claim that we had "broken the habit" in terms of that. There's was plenty of drunked wife-beating post-Prohibition. Also, the "going out to the bars after work and coming home drunk" was a common practice post-Prohibition. You might be able to make the case that there was a lessening in the prevelance of this behavior, but it was certainly still around. Besides that, I don't necessarily know that data pre-Prohibition provides anywhere near enough coverage or that what's availible is reliable enough to support a valid comparison in rates of something like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it goes back to say to me that I haven't heard any concrete evidence banning SSM. As far as children go, there are enough "normal" marriages that raise children badly... I am just waiting to see if people will make a huge fuss about it. I'm use to the parent types (not me obviously) worrying about how everyone else raises their children.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never anticipated this topic to go nine pages, I know that is a record for me. My mom will be so proud!
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am late to this thread and have only read pages 1, 7, 8, and 9....
But I did read the first half of the document Kent originally linked to.
Up through (Warner's) page 6, except for a couple of references to LDS-specific beliefs and a single reference to 'bearing' children (as opposed to raising, developing, nurturing), I saw nothing unsurprising, nor anything that in my mind couldn't apply to SSM.
I am neither gay, nor Mormon; but I have been married, and plan to be so again. I think C. Terry Warner's definitions of marriage -- its traditions, contracts, way of life, ideals -- are pretty solid, pretty inspiring. Not everyone would agree with every syllable for their own marriage, and far fewer (as he acknowledges) live up to such ideals.
The section on it being a religious covenant -- well, for religious people, that's fine too. Surely unreligious people can be married; and I agree that at some level, woven into the social contract, the ancestral connection between the legal vow and the religious vow is relevant. That society holds "marriage" as an institution to be a "sacred bond" -- one that should never be entered into lightly or with ulterior motive, and that is intended to be lifelong. The most serious thing of all serious things. "Sacred" in a secular sense, if you follow -- what Warner calls "in good conscience."
So, as a package, I buy Warner's sketch:
"ideals of commitment, trust, fidelity, child-rearing, kindness, and sacrifice"
"a covenant with God, or in good conscience"
"partners covenant to become as one"
"It is with one’s natural complement that the covenant is made"
"rearing a posterity together"
But I repeat -- and this applies to almost every word of all the detail he provides on these points -- I don't see any difference for gay couples who wish to marry.
I think it is key to the (pro-SSM) debate, to be able to say "this is what traditional marriage is," and then for a gay couple to say, "yep, tha's wha' ah'm talkin' about!"
The most controversial item is probably the "natural complement" one. But if you take all the references to man-woman (of which there are actually very few) in that section, and replace them with partner A-partner B (given that I understand that not all, or even most, gay couples consist in a 'feminine' partner and a 'masculine' partner, but acknowledging that deep differences and complements unite them, as with men and women), the whole thing is just fine:
quote:This partner A-partner B duality has deep practical dimensions. Partner A and Partner B think and feel differently in ways no socialization can change. Each has his or her own singular and irreplaceable contributions to make to their union and their family. This fact of nature makes marriage burdensome and frustrating if we are worldly—our partner seems to demand that we give up what we think we need to be happy. But if we are seeking to be faithful to our marriage covenant, this same call to sacrifice self-interest in favor of our partner and our marriage is precisely what will stretch us enough to become, individually and together, more virtuous, loving, long-suffering, and forgiving. In regards to our character and personality, it will quite literally stretch us out of shape—our worldly, self-absorbed shape—as it transforms us into beings who begin to resemble their highest destiny. Though it does not seem so to the worldly, the marriage partners flourish individually and together, and rear flourishing children, in proportion to the moral and spiritual requirements to which they rise. And the requirements for this transformation of human beings are nowhere more completely provided than by the complementary and demanding differences of two people in a traditional marriage.
Let us take a commonplace example. Trying to get along with each other as best they can, however awk-wardly, two relatively immature people will find themselves undergoing changes, little by little. Each will become more long-suffering and patient. Each will sacrifice. In spite of himself, the partner who likes football will discover that he can actually live without Monday Night Football. Alternatively, you know married people who have remained as they began, selfish and miserable and fundamentally lonely—but you have not met two people striving to live their marriage covenant who have remained that way. Entering a traditional marriage is deliberately choosing to live according to a way of life that will elevate the partners far above worldly self-indulgence, break down their selfishness, and install the other’s needs as the primary concern in each of their hearts.
[Bold edits mine.]
As for the children section, there is no exception with respect to "bearing" made for infertile couples or couples who do not wish to raise children, that does not equally apply to gays -- and all the rest about "raising" and "rearing" applies equally to all.
Anyway, that is my take. I find it not just interesting but dramatic how well a traditionalist's screed presents a model for marriage that works for all. None of the carefully worked substance, the so-called "benefits," of marriage need to be abandoned to accommodate SSM. They all survive intact (again, short of direct religious edict regarding same-sex relations), and no distinction has been drawn for any such benefit or ideal to show that it issues from, or accrues to, specific combinations of biological gender exclusively.
3 minor edits: punctuation, word choice, grammar.
[ October 26, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
