Prop 8 as discussed in BYU's "Daily Universe"

[california boy]

Regardless, the evidence we see in Scandinavia is that people have been influenced by the dogma "gay marriage" represents.

Have you ever considered that your stance that marriage for gay couples is not important, you are contributing to the belief that marriage in general is not important? Heterosexual marriage is on the decline throughout the western world whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Perhaps the christian right constantly telling people that it is not important for gay families to marry, are contributing to this general decline in pushing the belief that marriage is no longer important. What message are you sending to the children of gay couples telling them their parents should not marry?

BTW, those adopted children of gay families come from homes where a father and mother are NOT already present. I don't think there are many marriages where both the father and mother are raising kids that are sending children to gay families. Gay adoption does not take children away from father/mother families. I would say that all gay adoptions come from at best, where only one parent is available and where usually neither parent is around. I think most would agree, children in these situations are better off with two gay parents rather than none or even a single parent. It seems like if marriage increases stability in these families, it would be in the state interest to encourage gay marriage.

[Mordecai]

Well, let's give some real life examples that anyone can relate to, since you guys don't like behavioral science and reject the correlation we see in Scandinavia.

We'll use a more concrete example of value first, and then we'll apply this to marriage.

A man goes to a fast-food restaurant and asks for bottled water. What he gets, however, is tap water in a bottle. What he learns from this is that bottled water has no intrinsic value. He goes home to his girlfriend and finds she did him a favor and bought him some bottled water. She points this out. He thinks, "Well, is that really a favor to get me bottled water, when from my experience, bottled water is just tap water? Is this to trick me that she did me a favor or did she really do something nice for me?" Of course, as this use of the term "bottled water" increases, people stop paying for it at fast food restaurants.

His girlfriend, at work, is told by her gay friend Bob, "I'm getting married!"

She's a little surprised and is like, "I thought you were gay!"

"I am gay! But now that the government has changed what marriage is, I am no longer a 2nd class citizen and get government perks and everything!"

What she learns from this is that, for her, marriage has no intrinsic value.

A few months later, she is pregnant, so her boyfriend asks her to marry him. She thinks, "Well, I was never a 2nd class citizen in the first place, and I don't need government perks. I make more money than he does." So they don't get married. (Granted, this is oversimplified, but people's feelings on this will reflect the idea that the point of marriage is to not be a 2nd class citizen and to get government perks).

Based on these hypothetical examples, we see a change in behavior based on the change in language. People stop buying bottled water from fast food restaurants and women stop wanting to get married, particularly when they already have enough money. Based on this common sense, I would predict that Scandinavia would continue to have an increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock childbirth. In fact, that is what we see.

[Zeta-Flux]

Have you ever considered that your stance that marriage for gay couples is not important, you are contributing to the belief that marriage in general is not important? Heterosexual marriage is on the decline throughout the western world whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Perhaps the christian right constantly telling people that it is not important for gay families to marry, are contributing to this general decline in pushing the belief that marriage is no longer important. What message are you sending to the children of gay couples telling them their parents should not marry?

BTW, those adopted children of gay families come from homes where a father and mother are NOT already present. I don't think there are many marriages where both the father and mother are raising kids that are sending children to gay families. Gay adoption does not take children away from father/mother families. I would say that all gay adoptions come from at best, where only one parent is available and where usually neither parent is around. I think most would agree, children in these situations are better off with two gay parents rather than none or even a single parent. It seems like if marriage increases stability in these families, it would be in the state interest to encourage gay marriage.

Have you ever considered that the decline of marriage is primarily due to legislation efforts, like no fault divorce, and that further legislative efforts in that vein would *further* erode the institution?

Prop. 8 had nothing to do with adoption rights. Gay couples could already do that. Thus your claim that this this reason provided a state interest does not follow. (Not to mention it doesn't deal with the real problem: people having children outside of marriage, and then denying any responsibility in the creation of that child.)

[Jaybear]

Well, let's give some real life examples that anyone can relate to, since you guys don't like behavioral science and reject the correlation we see in Scandinavia.

What correlation?

You claim that: In Scandinavia, 60% of their children are born out of wedlock since their governments recognized "gay marriage" as if its a real marriage.

Gay marriage became legal in Sweden and Norway in 2009, and 2010 in Iceland.

Please show (1)that percentage of children born out of wedlock increased after that period, and (2)that the change is attributed to gay marriage.

It obvious what your are doing. You oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, then go out look for or construct secular reasons to justify that opposition, even to the point of fabricating argument.

In Mass, gays have been allowed to marry for over 6 years. Life goes on.

[Jaybear]

Similarly, I and many others hold it as true that "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

Well good for you. But what does that have to do with gay marriage?

If your really cared about the children, and were not merely presenting a pretextual secular objection to gay marriage, your battle to preserve such rights, should begin with (1) passing laws banning premaritial sex between heterosexual couples; and then expand into (2) passing laws banning heterosexual couples with children from divorcing; and finally (3) ban invetro fertilization.

[Zeta-Flux]

In Mass, gays have been allowed to marry for over 6 years. Life goes on.

In many states, no fault divorce has been legal for over 30 years. Sure, life goes on. That doesn't mean the legislation (or judicial decision, in the case of Mass.) doesn't have some nasty social ramifications.

[Zeta-Flux]

Well good for you. But what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Nothing, per se. It has everything to do with real marriage though.

If your really cared about the children, and were not merely presenting a pretextual secular objection to gay marriage, your battle to preserve such rights, should begin with (1) passing laws banning premaritial sex between heterosexual couples; and then expand into (2) passing laws banning heterosexual couples with children from divorcing; and finally (3) ban invetro fertilization.

First, I think your solution to the problem is too extreme. Second, I DO care about children, and I do work towards passing laws which I believe will help children have the rights I outlined (just not in the extreme way you suggest). Third, do you believe "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."? If not, why not?

[Spurven Ten Sing]

What strikes me about these correlations about Scandinavian living arrangements is how they miss the mark. Yes, in Scandinavia few couples go through the trouble of getting married and opt to live together while raising their children. However, they tend to stay together as married couples do. It is the norm to have two parents living together, raising between one and three kids, and staying together as though they were married. I must repeat, they stay together as though they were married. The children then have both mother and father exactly as you do in the United States. There is no effect on the family, it functions normally.

What does that say about marriage? Perhaps it is wholly irrelevant to raising happy and healthy children or creating a happy and healthy family.

How long until someone argues that crime, unwanted children, neglegence or drugs are what Scandinavia is known for? Never.

[Jake]

In this case, the more operative difference between a "gay marriage" and a real marriage is the reality that a "gay marriage" doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children.

Of course, without marriage being meaningful, it will stop promoting the beneficial behavior that Nature intended, i.e. two biological parents raising their own children.

So, we should do away with adoption as well because "it will stop promoting the beneficial behavior that Nature intended, i.e. two biological parents raising their own children"??

[Mordecai]

However, they tend to stay together as married couples do. It is the norm to have two parents living together, raising between one and three kids, and staying together as though they were married. I must repeat, they stay together as though they were married. The children then have both mother and father exactly as you do in the United States. There is no effect on the family, it functions normally.

You mean other than separating earlier, prior to the children being grown? Yeah, that's exactly the same to have traumatized children, as opposed to children that are not traumatized. It's all good.

Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

It's pretty important to prove your claim that Scandinavian co-habitation is the same as real marriages, but since the rates of separation of married people in Scandinavia separating prior to children being grown have increased, it's logical to assume the same is true with those who are co-habitating. As Kurtz points out, "gay marriage" has helped to fossilize and reinforce the existing trend in Scandinavia to not value the traditional family. It appears that even the "real marriages" in Scandinavia aren't real anymore, so they have completely dissolved the Natural institution in favor of an artificial state construct.

It seems to me, "gay marriage" in Scandinavia is a result of destroyed family values, similar to how in the U.S. people who don't give a crap about family values (as you admittedly don't) are in favor of "gay marriage," while those that hold to traditional values reject it.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Mordy, you do understand that 'marriages' end in equal proportions. Kurtz is not here claiming otherwise.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Yes, perhaps the traditional family is not necessary for a happy family. Where are all these traumatized delinquent children overrunning Denmark?

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Does Kurtz have a source cited we can see?

[Mordecai]

So, we should do away with adoption as well because "it will stop promoting the beneficial behavior that Nature intended, i.e. two biological parents raising their own children"??

If I believed that adoption stopped promoting beneficial behavior, I would be against it. But I don't believe that, because that makes no sense.

[Mordecai]

Does Kurtz have a source cited we can see?

Kurtz is the source. The guy testified before Congress, as he is an expert.

[Mordecai]

Mordy, you do understand that 'marriages' end in equal proportions. Kurtz is not here claiming otherwise.

My question is, how do you know this? Why are you making these assertions, as if you have the facts? He doesn't claim otherwise, because there are no statistics on the matter, which belies your pretend knowledge. You can't make claims on what is not measured, and it isn't measured because the state can't measure it. The state can't measure it, partly because of their own actions of promoting the idea that its irrelevant. But as I said, the marriages in Scandinavia have become empty shells of real marriage. They are merely government perks; there is no real commitment in government perks.

That's what is implied with the whole idea of "gay marriage," that marriage isn't anything but a label and some insurance and entitlement laws. It's nothing to them, and you would have the government usurp the role of Nature, tearing down what Nature has built.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

He doesn't claim otherwise, because there is no evidence. But as I said, the marriages in Scandinavia have become empty shells of real marriage, as Nature intended. They are merely government perks; there is no real commitment in government perks.

That's what is implied with the whole idea of "gay marriage," that marriage isn't anything but a label and some extra government perks. It's nothing to them, and you would have the government usurp the role of Nature, tearing down what Nature has built.

It IS apparently nothing. Children are being raised at least as well with samboer as with married couples. This seems to show that 'marriage' is the invisible clothes of the Kaiser. What is there to damage by SSM?

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Kurtz is the source. The guy testified before Congress, as he is an expert.

How could he know this? Did he personally conduct an unpublished study of some kind? This is not a source.

[Jake]

If I believed that adoption stopped promoting beneficial behavior, I would be against it. But I don't believe that, because that makes no sense.

Funny, proponents of Prop 8 couldn't/wouldn't/didn't present evidence at trial that children raised by same sex parents "stopped promoting beneficial behavior".

[Mordecai]

It IS apparently nothing. Children are being raised at least as well with samboer as with married couples. This seems to show that 'marriage' is the invisible clothes of the Kaiser. What is there to damage by SSM?

So to you, separating before the children are grown is the same as not separating? They're being raised at least as well with "samboer?" Lesbian couples, when compared to the "average american family," compare favorably. But the average American family is often comprised of a wife and a step-father. If you look at the statistics on step father abuse, they are horrendous. Furthermore, lesbian couples' success is artificially inflated by government screening. So on two levels, they have advantages that are misleading. The ultimate outcome of "gay marriage" is to destroy the institution of marriage, increasing the rate of separation, increasing the number of step-parents and therefore abuse. The ultimate outcome will be the same as in Scandinavia, where people co-habitate, where step parents (particularly step fathers) do a horrendous job of replacing the real parents and the government has no means of screening any of them.

[Mordecai]

Funny, proponents of Prop 8 couldn't/wouldn't/didn't present evidence at trial that children raised by same sex parents "stopped promoting beneficial behavior".

I never made that claim, genius. My claim is that the government is adopting the implied dogma of "gay marriage," i.e. that biological parenthood is irrelevant. The gay unions per se aren't harmful to marriage, but the government adopting the dogma is harmful.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

BTW, the governments of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all track sambo couples, and your claim that there exists no statistics for unmarried couples with children is wrong. Every coupling with a child is tracked and taxed accordingly. My source is in Norwegian if you want it, but that should not be needed as I am an expert in Scandinavian history, culture, and cheeses.

Yay, Jarlsberg!

[Spurven Ten Sing]

So to you, separating before the children are grown is the same as not separating? They're being raised at least as well with "samboer?" Lesbian couples, when compared to the "average american family," compare favorably. But the average American family is often comprised of a wife and a step-father. If you look at the statistics on step father abuse, they are horrendous. Furthermore, lesbian couples' success is artificially inflated by government screening. So on two levels, they have advantages that are misleading. The ultimate outcome of "gay marriage" is to destroy the institution of marriage, increasing the rate of separation, increasing the number of step-parents and therefore abuse. The ultimate outcome will be the same as in Scandinavia, where people co-habitate, where step parents (particularly step fathers) do a horrendous job of replacing the real parents and the government has no means of screening any of them.

My only point is that in this dark land of Scandinavia, samboer coupling raise children, stay together, and are at least as efficient and healthy as 'marriage' is. In other words, I am suggesting that if someone ever cites Scandinavia as an example of moral decay on a societal level based on unmarried child bearing couples they know not of which they speak.

Jarlsberg?

[Spurven Ten Sing]

The ultimate outcome will be the same as in Scandinavia, where people co-habitate, where step parents (particularly step fathers) do a horrendous job of replacing the real parents and the government has no means of screening any of them.

I see what you are saying now. Unmarried Scandinavian couples with children do not spli up at rates higher than married child bearing couples.

[Mordecai]

BTW, the governments of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all track sambo couples, and your claim that there exists no statistics for unmarried couples with children is wrong. Every coupling with a child is tracked and taxed accordingly. My source is in Norwegian if you want it, but that should not be needed as I am an expert in Scandinavian history, culture, and cheeses.

Yay, Jarlsberg!

What evidence do you have that every coupling with a child is tracked and taxed accordingly? You say you have a source, but you are ultimately that source. Are you an expert? What are your credentials? If that source is in Norwegian or not, then we should have some online resources that give us those statistics and clarifies what is being said in English somewhere. Why should I trust you, when you obviously have an agenda, asserting it as fact that marriage is worthless?

Furthermore, the evidence doesn't support your claim, so whatever evidence you do have, you're not interpreting intelligently. The fact is, Scandinavian separations prior to children being grown have increased and continue to increase as the state has adopted various positions that marriage is irrelevant, including "gay marriage." I'm going with Kurtz over you, for obvious reasons. Like I said, he testified before Congress. He's an expert. You're a random guy in a discussion forum.

I see what you are saying now. Unmarried Scandinavian couples with children do not spli up at rates higher than married child bearing couples.

So what I glean from this is that Scandinavia treats marriage as if it is mere government perks. Exactly. It is meaningless to them.

My only point is that in this dark land of Scandinavia, samboer coupling raise children, stay together, and are at least as efficient and healthy as 'marriage' is. In other words, I am suggesting that if someone ever cites Scandinavia as an example of moral decay on a societal level based on unmarried child bearing couples they know not of which they speak.

Jarlsberg?

Assuming that's true, that's your way of interpreting it. My way of interpreting it is that marriage is so meaningless to them, that it doesn't effect their behavior in the slightest. That is not true in the U.S., for example.