quote:Higher crime rates, drops in literacy, economical decline, infant mortality increases, life expectancy drops, standard of living decline, scientific spending decline. There are more but those are the easiest to acknowledge as being unfavorable.
Unfavorable yes, but how in the world do you tie those to the acceptance of SSM?
It's equally possible that SSM would lead to a drop in promiscuity (with a corresponding drop in the spread of sexually transmitted disease), a drop in teen suicide, and a stronger economy as more couples feel comfortable planning for the future together.
It's more likely that we'll see all of that plus an increase in hate crimes and many more protests.
But I fail to see how a renewed emphasis on lifetime commitment can be a bad thing. Maybe heterosexuals will start trying harder on their own marriages so the homosexuals won't show them up...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm reading him wrong, but it doesn't look like he's saying SSM will cause those things. He's answering two seperate questions seperately.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Slavery was status quo, segregation was status quo, women as property was status quo. There were "downsides" to abolishing all of those. Still it needed to be done because it was right.
Right, thats why freeing the slaves had to be demonstratably good, ditto for desegregation, and women as property. Alot of historians are acknowledging today that the flat across the board abolishment of slavery was a bad idea and that an easing into a slaveless society would have probably worked better. This may or may not matter but slavery was abolished almost as much for political convenience as it was for being moral. For women to not be seen as property women had to demonstrate that the view of women as inferiors was unfounded and bereft of real data. Its obviously much easier to show that these positive changes are so obviously good now, but when we institute radical new change to the status quo its unwise to believe that we fully understand the ramifications of doing so when it is done.
You mentioned downsides to abolishing slavery, instituting women's equality, and desegregating society. I'm not sure I agree with you that there were good arguments that they would harm society.
quote: I am not clear. Are you suggesting that higher crime rates, drops in literacy etc. would be the result of SSM? If so, why do you think these things would follow.
oh no no no, I was asked a question that seemed vague and said I could not postulate on the good or ill accomplished by SSM. I was asked to list factors that could be used to judge harm to society. So I did. Those factors are not all necessarily related in any way to SSM.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, could you provide a little more behind why your harms will fall out from SSM?
I have a sudden desire to say that SSM will, as part of its benefits to society, cure cancer, bring about world peace, ecological balance, and snappier dressing.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: BB, could you provide a little more behind why your harms will fall out from SSM?
I have a sudden desire to say that SSM will, as part of its benefits to society, cure cancer, bring about world peace, ecological balance, and snappier dressing.
-Bok
Seems a lot of people misunderstood what I was trying to say. My initial reaction is to blame myself for being too vague rather then accuse any of you for idiocy. You can all decide which is more true for yourselves.
Again I admit that I cannot accurately guess as to how SSM might harm society. But there ARE plenty of ways to gauge harm to society, thats all my post was attempting to list.
And can I just say I LOVE LOVE LOVE Firefox 2.0's auto spell checker. You all have no idea how much I need it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Err...I never suggested that they should be the only. However, I think we can all agree that they do provide a way of judging the health of marriage.
There are places in our country and outside it that are allowing same sex marriages. As yet, none of the dire consequences that people have predicted have occured in these places. In fact, in many, many scales (included many the indicate the health of the marriages and families), the states in the U.S. that allow SSM are much better off than the states that are realy, really against them.
We're not in Gay marriage boogeyman territory now. There are places that are allowing them. And, as I said, the dire predictions haven't come true. How long does it take of these places functioning at around the same level before we can say "Well, it doesn't seem to have any awful effects."?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the pedictions I've heard would take at least a generation to tell if they had come true or not. :shrug:
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No specific predictions come to mind, but most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That seems to be a pretty testable thing. We've got children who were adopted and raised by gay couples. We should be able to gauge, to a certain extent, what the effects would be by looking at these kids.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
Please explain. To me then it sounds like you are saying not only are pro-SSM marriage arguements completely invalid, but that there's not even an issue. That response seems to illegitimize my very existence. "Oh, there's no problem since you could marry a woman. The fact that you're gay is the problem."
You sound surprised. Isn't that exactly what he's been saying?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That seems to be a pretty testable thing. We've got children who were adopted and raised by gay couples. We should be able to gauge, to a certain extent, what the effects would be by looking at these kids.
When you think that people growing up and not thinking that homosexuality is always awful wrong bad bad wrong is a terribly negative effect, no matter what you're going to think there's terrible harm. If you're worried about those kids being more likely to turn out to be gay, that's another issue altogether.
posted
BB- I phrased it wrong, what I meant to ask was what evidence would convince you that gay marriage was good (or at least neutral) for society. Then I asked the next question so we could have some idea what we meant when we said something was good or bad for society.
For example, if one of the factors used to judge that society is bad is that it has gay marriage, then we're sort of running around in circles.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No specific predictions come to mind, but most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
How can I resist spending the time and effort to answer your question when it was asked so respectfully?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the simple expedient of resorting to a wounded dignity and twisting the issue into one of what language is appropriate, apparently.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that would work out deliciously for you, KoM-if people were willing to ignore your language and answer your 'questions' while ignoring tone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
How can I resist spending the time and effort to answer your question when it was asked so respectfully?
I could spend the next two days searching out all the references on this board I've heard to "hate the sin, not the sinner." I think "responsible hatred" is a fair term.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly then it would be wise not to bandy about words like hatred so lightly, no? Or perhaps you don't subscribe to hating the sin?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
My point was, we just talked about this. In this conversation, you didn't know the basic facts. I, on the other hand, knew much more than the basic facts and represented myself as knowing even more, specifically about the efficacy of the ex-gay people's "therapy". I referenced the ex-gay movement in this thread, as I do in many threads of the subject. I did it to directly challenge your assumptions.
You responded with challenging my character, saying that you seriously doubted my claims, bascially calling me a liar. And why? Not because I didn't display a more than surface knoweldge in the other thread. Not because you knew any information that was contrary to my claims. Not because my statements were at all inconsistent. No, you called me a liar because the facts I was presenting disagreed with your beliefs.
I'm not sure, but are you now willing to say, having seen a more extensive section of my knowledge on this subject, that I'm not lying about knowing a substantial amount about the programs I'm talking about? And, if so, will you grant that, when I say that they've been trying to convert highly motivated gay Christians for the past 30 years without any established success except possibly in a very, very small number of cases, I'm speaking from knowledge of the subject? Or, at the very least, actually try to learn something about the subject before you make an attack on my character again?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I'm wondering, do you see a problem with extrapolating from the children raised by gay couples to the wider effect on society? If so, could you tell me what they are?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how I was treated last time I tried to do something similar, I'll politely decline.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::edited to remove unecessary aggression, though I felt the sentiment was fair, I don't think it's productive::
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
My point was, we just talked about this. In this conversation, you didn't know the basic facts. I, on the other hand, knew much more than the basic facts and represented myself as knowing even more, specifically about the efficacy of the ex-gay people's "therapy". I referenced the ex-gay movement in this thread, as I do in many threads of the subject. I did it to directly challenge your assumptions.
You responded with challenging my character, saying that you seriously doubted my claims, bascially calling me a liar. And why? Not because I didn't display a more than surface knoweldge in the other thread. Not because you knew any information that was contrary to my claims. Not because my statements were at all inconsistent. No, you called me a liar because the facts I was presenting disagreed with your beliefs.
I'm not sure, but are you now willing to say, having seen a more extensive section of my knowledge on this subject, that I'm not lying about knowing a substantial amount about the programs I'm talking about? And, if so, will you grant that, when I say that they've been trying to convert highly motivated gay Christians for the past 30 years without any established success except possibly in a very, very small number of cases, I'm speaking from knowledge of the subject? Or, at the very least, actually try to learn something about the subject before you make an attack on my character again?
Liar wasn't really the label I was going for. Overstater? Or exaggerator? In anycase I am willing to admit that for the time being you know more on the topic then I do, and your statement that gay therapy attempts have been fruitless is more tenable a position then my ignorance. I apologize if you felt I was going after you as a person rather then the issues you were presenting.
It just seemed you were making an all encompassing statement about the matter and I had no reason to hold your opinion in higher regard then my own.
Don't be surprised if I make it my business to know more on this topic.
Bokonon: No harm no foul Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, does someone else have a response then?
I'll lay out my position.
I'm going to leave aside the negative aspects, like not forcing your religion on others and insuring equal treatment before the law. Those seem to make up near the entirety of threads like this and, really, while I regard them as important, they don't really account for how I see this issue.
For me, it's the positives. Speaking both as a social scientist and someone whose life has been blessed with more than his fair share of happy marriages (meaning I've seen many people close to me in happy marriages, not that I've had many of my own), I think marriage, done correctly, is a wonderful thing. It brings innumerable benefits to both the people in it, the people close to the married couple, and the society as a whole.
The good stuff that comes along with being in a good marriage are such that I think nearly all people would choose that for themselves for purely selfish reasons, let alone as a way of spending one's life with and bringing joy to the person you love.
Ultimately, I can't see any reason why we should not want as many people as possible to get into good marriages. And there's seems to me to be no reason why two people being of the same sex would make it so that their joining wouldn't result in all those wonderful things about marriage nor would it make it any less likely for any other people to partake in all these wonderful things.
So, when people tell me that this isn't so, I try to figure out why they believe so. As yet, I have never been given an answer that sounds convincing to me and I've encountered a lot of reasons that are just plain false (e.g. we know that gay parents can't raise children as well as straight parents can).
Also, I have to note that many of the people who are fighting for gays not to be allowed to get married hold marriage in much lower regard than I do. I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates. OSC's essay about this makes marriage out to be this unnatural imposition that people need to be tricked or cajoled into. Many of the people I've encountered on this site and elsewhere who are anti-SSM have, when we've discussed wider issues, held that a big way to fix marriage is to outlaw divorce.
It makes me wonder at times if they're against it at least in part because they don't realize who wonderful a good marriage can be and how widespread its effects are. But, dpesite that suspicion, I do try to find out the reasons why people think it would have bad effects. I've yet to hear ones from anti-SSM people that have panned out to anything more than those based on false ideas or personal and/or religious prejudice.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't be surprised if I make it my business to know more on this topic.
That would suprise the heck out of me, but in a pleasant way.
Also, in this context, these:
quote:Overstater? Or exaggerator?
mean liar. I was pretty clear that I was representing myself as knowing what I was talking about. Were things otherwise, I would have intentionally been representing myself as
quote:hav[ing] extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal
without this being so. Dress it up how you want, that would be lying. But, hey, I'm just a guy who thinks it is extremely important to not claim to know more than he does and who makes a practice of not doing so here. If the things I represent as true disagree with your uniformed opinions, I guess it is perfectly rational and acceptable to call me a liar. I mean, dude, "even few programs"?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just do not get how voting to limit the rights of a certain group of people to basic things like access to dying partners, equal treatment under tax laws, the ability to have custody of a child the person has jointly raised, etc. cannot be considered discrimination. These are things to which other couples are entitled simply because of being different genders. Having a religious conviction that it is not God's way - yes, ok, fine. By all means, do not recognize such unions as being legitimate in God's eyes and do not have them in your houses of worship. As I mentioned once before, I know that for LDS, if a marriage isn't sealed in a temple it's not eternal, etc. So to Mormons, anyone not married in a temple isn't in a real marriage anyway, and has yet to accept the true faith. And many Catholic churches do not allow mixed faith couples to marry there, or they can't marry at the altar. There is infinite room for religions to choose to recognize or not recognize unions.
There should not be infinite room for people to restrict the rights of couples based only on gender. People are free to preach against it, advise others not to, demonstrate, whatever. Voting that belief into law? No, that's acting on prejudice. How is this any different from people putting laws on the books banning cross-racial marriages? In America we may not legally discrimate against people based on things like race, disability, or gender. So even if you believe that homosexuality is a disability or a gender-belief disorder, it's still discriminatory. People are also not supposed to discriminate based on a person's religion. So a gay hiring manager should not be able to throw your resume out because you happen to be a Southern Baptist and so they s/he suspects you oppose the idea of gay unions. They should be afforded the same protection in our democracy.
Does oppostion to equal legal rights for homosexual couples boil down to anything other than unsupported fear and a belief that people's personal relgious convictions should allow them to impose those convictions on other people? This is an honest question, I've read the whole thread and I really don't understand where those who oppose it are coming from in terms of not supporting equal legal rights. Not personally recognizing, or approving of, or having in your religion? That I get.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the argument could be that, by not actively opposing it, they would be tacitly approving it. And approval is something that would be contrary to their faith, and the laws of God, therefore, bound by that logic trap, they are forced to oppose it vigorously.
I disagree, but I certainly follow the train of logic. It makes sense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates.
Which groups, again?
It's important to note that corellary != cause.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I have to note that many of the people who are fighting for gays not to be allowed to get married hold marriage in much lower regard than I do. I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates.
Specious at best. A "group" doesn't hold marriage in regard, individuals do. Going from "a greater percentage of group X gets divorced than group Y" and "a greater percentage of people in group X than people in group Y favor banning gay marriage" to "therefore people who favor banning gay marriage get divorced at a higher rate" is an example of the ecological fallacy. This is especially true in political science, where there are thousands of documented instances of the political stances favored in, and some higher than average demographic feature of, geographic regions being negatively correlated, despite being attributes of the same population.
Further, going by this link, Catholics have the same divorce rate as atheists/agnostics and Mormons have only a slightly higher rate. Further, there is evidence that the divorce rate is lower when both spouses are of the same faith. It's not clear if that would change the relative rankings of divorce by faith group. But, if same-faith marriage correlates to religiosity (supposition - I'm not saying it does) then one might expect the group with the lower divorce rate in a denomination generally opposed to gay marriage - that is, the non-inter-faithers of that denomination - to be the group more strongly dedicated to stopping gay marriage. Again, this is supposition.
Without a study comparing divorce rates to attitudes toward legal recognition of gay marriage, there too many possibilities to be sure of the relationship.
Where's your evidence that the people "pushing strongest" against gay marriage don't hold marriage in as high regard as you?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You sound surprised. Isn't that exactly what he's been saying?
Actually, I'm not sure that is exactly what he's saying at least insofar as I'm using one definition of "legitimate" and he may be using another.
The sense I mean is "in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical" and "not spurious or unjustified; genuine" (definitions #4 and #6 at dictionary.com). Unless Porter decides to clarify otherwise, I'm choosing to believe he doesn't think I'm illogical, unreasonable, spurious or fake.
However, my objection to the remark I find flippant is that in a discussion where clearly the issue is whether people have the right to marry regardless of combined genders of the couple, to disregard pages and pages of reasoned arguement with "but you can marry! A woman!" is tantamount to denying any validity at all to the reasoning I'm working with. It comes across as blithely poo-pooing my whole case, not by addressing it but by denying it wholesale with a non-sequitur. That seems disrespectful of my arguements, which is surprising to me coming from Porter. That is why I asked for further clarification rather than simply assume Porter means the worst of the various possible interpretations there may be of what he wrote.
As to legitimacy, everyone makes choices based on the knowledge they have. I believe all choices made with the knowledge at hand are legitimate (i.e. reasonable, logical, genuine) – even if those choices ultimately turn out to be mistakes, provided the ignorance upon which the mistakes were made is not willful. I think this is a valid use of the word "legitimate". To disregard this definition of legitimacy, to me, would be to call me unreasonable and/or a liar, or at the very least un-genuine and willfully ignorant. That is not a conclusion I'm just going to jump to in Porter's case just because I may disagree with him philosophically.
On the other hand, I don't think that admitting legitimacy to my arguements is the same as agreeing with them. Clearly in this discussion the different sides are working from contrary premises, but I hope that we are empathic enough to recognize legitimate arguements and choices even when we disagree with them.
Clearly some people on both sides lack such empathy. I hope I'm not one of those. I believe Porter is not one and that's why I ask for clarification when I don't understand rather than to simply assume the worst.
quote:So to Mormons, anyone not married in a temple isn't in a real marriage anyway
This is not true. It's a real marriage. It's just not one that can last into the next life.
*Or, at least, it can be. There certainly are legal marriages, such as getting married and then having it annulled within a week, that I wouldn't call real marriages.
Oh, and Karl -- I responded to your email. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is going back a page or so, but I wanted to comment on this snippet:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
In principle, I agree. In practice, however, there is vast social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" to denote an ostensibly lifelong -- or at least long-term -- committed relationship. People who get civil unions will almost certainly call themselves "married," because English lacks suitable substitute terminology.
I essentially see two groups laying claim to the ability to define the term "marriage:" governments and religious institutions. A corollary to your statement of opinion is that religious instutions have the stronger claim. Is that what you think? If so, why? I'm curious, because I actually hold the other view. I think striking the term "marriage" from law entirely would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face -- in effect, if not intent.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another interesting (to me anyway) observation about English usage:
Not too long ago there was a lot of debate about what to call one's significant other (especially among gay men). One of the most common choices is "partner". (As in "this is my partner, Chris.") It wasn't log ago that you had to say "domestic partner" to not be confused with "business partner". Now, though, the confusion seems to have swapped places. I've twice witnessed people introduce business partners with "partner" and then backpedal with "business partner" when they get surprised or quizzical looks, and I almost never have to clarify when referring to my partner.
(In my mind, that's a "major victory for gay rights". )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: This is going back a page or so, but I wanted to comment on this snippet:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
In principle, I agree. In practice, however, there is vast social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" to denote an ostensibly lifelong -- or at least long-term -- committed relationship. People who get civil unions will almost certainly call themselves "married," because English lacks suitable substitute terminology.
I essentially see two groups laying claim to the ability to define the term "marriage:" governments and religious institutions. A corollary to your statement of opinion is that religious instutions have the stronger claim. Is that what you think? If so, why? I'm curious, because I actually hold the other view. I think striking the term "marriage" from law entirely would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face -- in effect, if not intent.
Twinky, this very much involves my response to Karl on the previous page. In fact, the heart of my support for same sex civil marriage rights is that government is not defining marriage, merely providing the rules by which the government will treat each couple's marriage. To the extent such treatment can be equal, it should be.
Government has expanded into so many spheres of life that there are people who think - with some justification - that, for society to reflect the dominant mores of the people, the government must.
I have very particular ideas about what government should do and should not do. One of the things it should do is leave as much up to individual conscience as possible (where "as possible" means "to the extent the other things government should do that are more important than freedom of conscience allow" - and I don't intend to try to define that in any consistent way today).
I don't want one of the goals of government to be "make society reflect the dominant mores of the people." For one, I think it's ridiculously improbable to think that government can do so. For another, I think it minimizes freedom of conscience.
I think the fact that so many people try to get government to fill this role actually lessens the chance that society will reflect those dominant mores. It squanders energy in fights to compel, making that energy unavailable for attempts to persuade and making the energy that is available for persuasion less able to achieve its goal because of the backlash against the attempted compelling.
It seems to me that if government does define marriage, and we have a democracy, then the definition of marriage will reflect the majoirty viewpoint. On the other hand, if government merely responds to marriages in controlled ways that are directly related to government, then the freedom to individually define marriage is greater.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Twinky, this very much involves my response to Karl on the previous page. In fact, the heart of my support for same sex civil marriage rights is that government is not defining marriage, merely providing the rules by which the government will treat each couple's marriage. To the extent such treatment can be equal, it should be.
I only have a minute or two, but part of my point is that setting such rules will necessarily have an impact -- over time -- on how people view marriage, and on what people mean when they say "married."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it will, but that's different, in my mind, from defining marriage.
For example, I think it ought to be possible for someone to work for the government and not have to acknowledge that two men are married. That person would have to acknowledge that they are in a civil union, though, especially if the job involved regulations that depend on union status.
If the change causes people to start using the term marriage generically, whether because of convenience or because of actual changed attitudes, I have no problem with that. However, I would have a severe problem with forcing someone to refer to something they don't consider a marriage as "marriage."
quote:Another interesting (to me anyway) observation about English usage:
Not too long ago there was a lot of debate about what to call one's significant other (especially among gay men). One of the most common choices is "partner". (As in "this is my partner, Chris.") It wasn't log ago that you had to say "domestic partner" to not be confused with "business partner". Now, though, the confusion seems to have swapped places. I've twice witnessed people introduce business partners with "partner" and then backpedal with "business partner" when they get surprised or quizzical looks, and I almost never have to clarify when referring to my partner.
Karl, that's been necessary since at least 1992 (from personal experience).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm sure it will, but that's different, in my mind, from defining marriage.
That's true. I would say that it's different in intent, but the same in effect.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, I think it ought to be possible for someone to work for the government and not have to acknowledge that two men are married. That person would have to acknowledge that they are in a civil union, though, especially if the job involved regulations that depend on union status.
I'm of two minds on this. What about non-religious marriage licensors?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There wouldn't be any marriage licensors at all if there weren't civil marriages, only civil unions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to jump into this thread so late, but the other thread on gay marriage has evolved into a religion and state type debate (for which I have to accept some responsibility).
This thread seems to have a more detailed discussion of the ramifications of legalising SSM.
So I thought I might pose some questions I was left with after reading OSC's column here, because apart from the religious puritan premise that homosexuality is depraved, he proceeds to discuss SSM in rational terms everyone can sympathise with or at least understand in order to refute. As a result his essay more than anything I've read which discusses sin and abomination, shook my faith in supporting SSM.
(Incidentally, I still support SSM. I'm saying it was the most effective anti-SSM piece I've read.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but OSC's drift is that;
(1) Civilization depends heavily on a stable reproductive order (and certain restrictions on 'natural' behaviour) for its survival. (2) Marriage is the most effective and stable reproductive arrangement, and provides children with good role models. But since we send our kids to schools, society must also act in loco parentis. (3) Children in heterosexual families have a better chance of turning out to be 'civilised' citizens and good parents themselves. (4) Gay couples are less successful as gender role models than heterosexual couples. (5) The ubiquity of households broken by divorce and the corruption of society's image of the family (i.e. the adoption of gay couples as positive role models) is harmful to all children in that society.
Therefore;
(6) In the interest of maintaining the institutions and values which keep civilisations alive, gay marriages should be opposed.
Also,
(7) Legalising gay marriage will have such a staggering impact on our society that we should look into it more first and slow down. How is this democratic, anyway? (8) Marriage by definition is heterosexual, and must be a union between two people who can reproduce together. (9) There is no evidence that gay people are born gay, and adopting gay couples as positive role models will cause some children to construe homoerotic tendencies as homosexuality, thus forcing upon them a lifestyle choice.
quote: Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
(10) Nobody said that homosexual men and women can't marry and have children. Some have dysfunctional families, but others don't.
So the implication is,
(11) We aren't infringing on their happiness by discouraging homosexuality. They would be better off, or at least civilisation would be, if they tried to fit into a normal heterosexual family model.
And sprinkled in the essay are a few dubious potshots at liberals etc.;
quote: Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies? Those who believe in the teachings of politically correct college professors? Or those who believe in the traditional values that the politically correct elite has been so successful in destroying?
---
So what are your responses to these points?
Firstly, (10) and (11) are just half-hearted concessions. Basically, they ask a gay person to stop being gay and get with the program. Even if (9) is true, one can't just choose to stop being gay.
And what is the evidence relating to homosexuality being genetic or environmental, by the way? I had always assumed it was a rough 50-50 mixture, but I realise I've never seen any studies to support my guess.
I think that (1) is a reasonable statement, and (2) is true - a corollary of our biology.
For (3), I take OSC's implied working definition of 'civilised' as; supportive of the heterosexual family system and of society, should it recognise that heterosexual family as well.
So by that definition, that's probably the case. Children brought up by gay couples will likely lean towards liberalism, and that happens to clash with what OSC sees as civilised. It doesn't with my definition.
As for being poor parents, most reports conclude that children of gay or lesbian couples don't differ too much from children of heterosexual couples. So that puts me in disagreement with (4). We're less clear on whether sexual orientation is affected, but I believe that the environment and parents, yes, will have an impact.
And (5) is where I stop. Divorces, yes. Maybe gay marriages may even dilute marriage as a social institution slightly (whatever the outcome of the semantic discussion over the word 'marriage'). But OSC seems to think that the zeal of SSM supporters will turn many children gay. I'm not so sure.
In any case, I don't see gay marriage as posing a threat to the children of heterosexual couples. The whole essay is based on the premise that we should act in a way which will keep the species' life cycle going. I don't think human civilisation - or more specifically American civilisation - will end because homosexuality is finally being recognised as something other than sin. There isn't even any evidence to support the hypothesis that there will be any notable drop in birth rates.
posted
(1) and (2) make no sense. It automatically assumes that if F/F and M/M relationships aren't legalized as marriage, then they'll just give up, marry people of the other gender, and have kids.
Is that anything more than a theoretical, hope for the best, supposition? It doesn't even make sense for the sake of wishful thinking.
(3) suggests that gay parents can't be as good as hetero parents, and what I think, what I honestly think opponents of SSM are really afraid of is that children of gay parents will end up gay themselves, and they'll outbreed the heteros and upset the world order.
I'm curious about that though. Where do all the current homosexuals come from? They are children of straight parents. Why is heterosexual parents can produce both straight and gay kids, but it's automatically assumed that gay parents will ONLY raise gay kids? It's a ridiculous assumption.
(4) Opponents of gay marriage have got to be kidding with this one. I'd argue that the majority of straight parents out there are letting society raise their kids, and not doing the job themselves, and society surely isn't the best stewared of gender models. But what I really wonder, is which gender models are we trying to honor here? Attacking gay marriages as bad stewards of gender roles presupposes that there is ONE gender role for both genders, and that all heterosexuals automatically uphold this model. So which model are we working from? 100 years ago, women were practically second class citizens in the home, and they couldn't vote. Now they are empowered, they do pretty much wnatever they want when it comes to deciding how to live their lives, and all of them have difference ideas on the role of a woman in the home. Likewise, there are tons of stay at home dads now, he isn't just the sole bread winner.
How are homosexuals supposed to embody the best gender roles when heterosexuals can't even decide for themselves what the best portrayal is?
(5) Society changes. The role of children in the family, like that of the woman and the man, has changes drastically in the last century. Society, and families, have to adapt. Families that care about their children, and try to raise them morally and to do good are still going to win out in the end. Just because homosexuality itself is against their morality, and their sense of "good," doesn't mean that the kids of those unions aren't going to be well raised, smart, and productive members of society who will go on to raise their own good generation of kids.
(6) Society, and for that matter, mankind, has survived so much more than the "threat" gay marriage poses, that I find this conclusion again laughable. Accepting homosexuality as a society isn't going to cause our downfall. There are still thousands of unadopted children in the country, and homosexual couples still have their own children through surrogates. There's nothing to support the conclusion that (6) comes to.
(7)Alright, here is a legitimate question. You have two sides, one is demanding freedom and equality, and the other one says that by granting that freedom and equality, you'll be violating their religious rights. Who wins? That is a serious issue. Ultimately I think you should always err on the side of freedom and equality. Similar arguments have been used to try to keep blacks and women subjugated, and we are better off as a society for ending that oppression. Religion and society both change and adapt over the centuries to accomodate each other. This is no different. It's the price you pay to live in a free society, that you refuse to participate in something, but allow others to have the option to.
(8) Marriage can have whatever definition the church confers upon it. The legal rights therein are guaranteed by the secular state, and religious groups have zero claim to them.
(9) We live in a free society. It doesn't really matter if they are born that way or not, it's their choice to live life that way if they so choose, and forcing them to live by the laws of someone else's religion is religious oppression. You're talking about a theory of sociology, but I don't agree with it. There are a HANDFUL of species on Earth that reproduce in a monogamous relationship. I don't see Rhinos dying out because they aren't getting married often enough. Giving everyone the option to have a gay marriage isn't going to convince someone they are gay. Hell, they are confused enough as it is. And you can flip that one easily enough. By having a society that refuses to accept homosexuality, you're forcing gays to live a straight lifestyle, thus forcing a lifestyle choice on them. Again, more freedom, rather than less, is the best course.
(11) Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the state telling you what they think is best for you and the rest of society, personal choice and happiness be damned. I mean, I know you think you know what you want out of life, but trust me, this is better. And even if you don't believe me, I'll punish you until you realize my way is best. That's the scariest idea up there. The state doesn't tell me what to do with my life. Personal freedom and personal choice is the American way of life. Stay the hell out of mine, please.
As for that last quote, I might ask: Who do you think is volunteering to fight in the army? Those who wish to uphold the American traditions of personal freedom and choice, or those who want to impose a Christian theocracy on the American people against the will of the minority?
I agree with you that the premise of the essay is faulty. I think that if gay marriage were accepted as a normal part of society, we'd blink twice at it, and move on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starting around here and going on for a while, there's a discussion about the research on the effects of gay parents on their kids.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (1) and (2) make no sense. It automatically assumes that if F/F and M/M relationships aren't legalized as marriage, then they'll just give up, marry people of the other gender, and have kids.
Is that anything more than a theoretical, hope for the best, supposition? It doesn't even make sense for the sake of wishful thinking.
What do you mean? (1) just says that civilisation needs a steady flow of new babies to sustain itself, and (2) says that a father and mother bringing a child up together is the best method of child-rearing. Which reminds me of this thread. Specifically, OSC mentions that polygamy results in surplus males who don't do anything for the gene pool.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There are still thousands of unadopted children in the country, and homosexual couples still have their own children through surrogates. There's nothing to support the conclusion that (6) comes to.
There's another important matter the SSM debate sometimes skims over - where do gay or lesbian parents get their children from anyway? Often, from orphanages or adoption services which get them from dead, irresponsible or incapable heterosexual couples.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, here's the first thing that came up when I googled for divorce statistics by state, which I think you asked for.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
