How Did this Happen? Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense to So Many

[BookofMormonLuvr]

How is it that society at large beginning to embrace the idea? Because this garbage has been feed to them for the last 45 years in Publick Screwels...

http://en.wikipedia....ecular_humanism

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Nice ploy. Just redefine morality as excluding the sexual kind.

I have done no such thing. I have invited YOU to identify a quantifiable objectively measurable statistic that YOU think correlates to the moral degradation of society, and then rationally explain why gay marriage would negatively impact that statistic.

I asked: By what objective standard should we measure moral degradation in society.

Its a simple question.

[Jaybear]

In such a way as to leave no history?

Are we talking about the Nephites? Did they allow gay marriage?

[Jason]

This statement makes me wonder, has ANY society long survived after fully accepting homosexual behavior?

Tough to say, since no past society ever tried to accept it to the extent that current Western Civilization is trying. That is, by equating it with marriage.

[Mordecai]

Please dont' presume to tell me what "I know." I understand you may feel just as strongly about your convictions as I do about mine.

Having an understanding of the English language is not a conviction. It's a skill I developed in early childhood and continued to develop throughout my life. You and I both know, however much you deny it, that there is a big difference between the words treatment and protection.

No, I really don't see a contradiction, given that my usage was meant to emphasize "marriage" as a relationship status, not as a "heterosexual vs. homosexual behavior."

"Marriage" is the act of joining two lives to form a family. That may, or MAY NOT, indicate any sexual behaviors. Given that I don't believe "sex" is a necessary part of a marriage, and given that I believe both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can and do marry (EVEN in cases where the betrothed may or may not be inherently straight or gay), I don't believe any and every marriage is an example of "heterosexual" behavior, as opposed to "homosexual" behavior.

Darin

Wow. You're just doing brain cartwheels here to rationalize the obvious contradiction in saying, "I don't want the gov't treating homosexual behavior the same as heterosexual. I just want them to treat gay marriage the same as real marriage." Insane.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

How would I even do such a study? IE. Is there some statistic available to show that immorality was a direct cause of the downfall of the Third Reich and not the Eighth Army Airforce?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

How would I even do such a study? IE. Is there some statistic available to show that immorality was a direct cause of the downfall of the Third Reich and not the Eighth Army Airforce?

I am not asking for a study. I am challenging the assumption that gay marriage leads to greater levels of moral decadence. To do that I ask for two things:

1. I am asking for a objective metric that you think best measures moral decadence. I gave you some suggestions, divorce rates, marriage rates, out of wedlock marriages, etc.

Then,

2. I asked for a coherent rationale explanation of why you would expect a correlation between gay marriage and the metric that you think best measures societal moral decadence.

Those seem like perfectly reasonable questions to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Any metric would have to include a study of why it should be included. The reason should be quite obvious. It quickly degenerates into correlation isn't causation problems. IE. How many rivets/bolts can be taken out of an airframe before it is not airworthy?

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Any metric would have to include a study of why it should be included. The reason should be quite obvious. It quickly degenerates into correlation isn't causation problems. IE. How many rivets/bolts can be taken out of an airframe before it is not airworthy?

Not true. I am only asking for a rational explanation as to why YOU believe that gay marriage would lead to say divorce rates. I am not asking you to prove the causation. I am just asking you to explain it.

By way of example, the Westburo Baptist Church protesters believe that tolerance of homosexuality has led to the death of American Soldiers being killed. The causal factor being God's wrath.

While that may seem crazy, at least they explained the link. Here all I see is an assertion that gay marriage leads to moral degradation of society, without any attempt to explain what exactly that means.

[Vance]

Tough to say, since no past society ever tried to accept it to the extent that current Western Civilization is trying. That is, by equating it with marriage.

In other words, they didn't survive long enough to get to this point, as far as we know.

Other than Sodom, Gomorrah and Pompeii (as I understand it), has any other society openly accepted Homosexual behavior?

Strange that these three were destroyed by fire. Three out of three, but hey, nothing to worry about. It was JUST a coincidence. Right?

[Jaybear]

Strange that these three were destroyed by fire. Three out of three, but hey, nothing to worry about. It was JUST a coincidence. Right?

Do you realize that this is the same logic that Westburo Baptist church members use to connect gay rights and US Soldiers being killed?

[Mordecai]

Do you realize that this is the same logic that Westburo Baptist church members use to connect gay rights and US Soldiers being killed?

I disagree. If, of all the countries in the world, only the countries that had largely normalized homosexuality also had soldiers killed, throughout history, then the Westburo Baptist church would have a stronger argument. Since we've had soldiers die in wars long before the "gay rights" movement, their position is completely irrational. Vance, however, does have a valid argument.

[Zeta-Flux]

I am only asking for a rational explanation as to why YOU believe that gay marriage would lead to say divorce rates. I am not asking you to prove the causation. I am just asking you to explain it.

Ok, I'll take you up on this. Gay marriage leads to children not being with both of their natural parents because their natural biology precludes them from mating, yet they are often fertile so can (and do) seek assisted birthing via a donor.

[Jaybear]

Ok, I'll take you up on this. Gay marriage leads to children not being with both of their natural parents because their natural biology precludes them from mating, yet they are often fertile so can (and do) seek assisted birthing via a donor.

Thanks for the effort. I will point out the following:

1. The children that you are concerned about would not have existed but for the efforts of the gay/infertile couple. In other words, gay couples are not taking children away from their biological parents. I would be surprised if these children share your opinion that the world would be better off if they had not been born.

2. I have no doubt that couples who have desire and financial means to got to such efforts to procreate, whether gay or infertile, would likely be both capable and committed parents. The same not can be said for the heterosexual couples:

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

3. Gay couples can presently use artificial means to concieve, even if they can't marry. Allowing gays to marry improves the situation, because children will have parents who are married.

[Jaybear]

I disagree. If, of all the countries in the world, only the countries that had largely normalized homosexuality also had soldiers killed, throughout history, then the Westburo Baptist church would have a stronger argument. Since we've had soldiers die in wars long before the "gay rights" movement, their position is completely irrational. Vance, however, does have a valid argument.

Vance believes society should not allow gay marriage because tolerance of gays in the past, brought about God's wrath.

The Wesburo baptists believe that society ought not tolerate gays because gay tolerance today has brought about God's wrath.

You think the anti-gay protesters are irrational, but Vance brings up a valid point.

Got it.

[Mordecai]

Vance believes society should not allow gay marriage because tolerance of gays in the past, brought about God's wrath...

But he does have an argument that societies that normalize homosexuality do not survive. In that respect, it makes sense.

The Wesburo baptists believe that society ought not tolerate gays because gay tolerance today has brought about God's wrath.

They are claiming a direct cause and effect with soldiers dying in a war, which is what is insane.

You think the anti-gay protesters are irrational, but Vance brings up a valid point...

That's exactly right.

[Jaybear]

But he does have an argument that societies that normalize homosexuality do not survive. In that respect, it makes sense.

They are claiming a direct cause and effect with soldiers dying in a war, which is what is insane.

Vance just attributed the destruction of Pompeii to the city's toleration of gays.

So God can and will cause a the destruction of the men, women and children living in Pompeii, but won't cause the death of American soldiers. Well, I for one am relieved to know that their are some limits to his wrath. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Zeta-Flux]

Thanks for the effort. I will point out the following:

1. The children that you are concerned about would not have existed but for the efforts of the gay/infertile couple. In other words, gay couples are not taking children away from their biological parents. I would be surprised if these children share your opinion that the world would be better off if they had not been born.

*cut the rest*

This so badly misunderstands and distorts what I wrote that I now realize there is no reason to communicate with you. Better off if they had not been born?! Really?!

I guess I can't be for birth control because you would claim I was for a world without those who are born otherwise. Or against divorce on the grounds I gave (among other reasons). Sheesh.

[Vance]

Vance believes society should not allow gay marriage because tolerance of gays in the past, brought about God's wrath.

WOW!!! Nothing like being TOLD what I believe. You do know that it is rude to do things like that don't you?

But your response begs the question. Do you have any sources that claim that it was God who destroyed Pompeii because of their general acceptance of homosexual behavior?

[Jaybear]

This so badly misunderstands and distorts what I wrote that I now realize there is no reason to communicate with you. Better off if they had not been born?! Really?!

I guess I can't be for birth control because you would claim I was for a world without those who are born otherwise. Or against divorce on the grounds I gave (among other reasons). Sheesh.

Then, I don't understand your point.

What is the rational connection between your desire that parents raise their biological offspring and gay marriage.

As indicated gay couples do not take raise children that would otherwise be raised by their biological parents.

[Vance]

Vance just attributed the destruction of Pompeii to the city's toleration of gays.

Did I?

Or did YOU infer that?

I simply made an observation.

If you can provide a counter example, I would like to see it.

So God can and will cause a the destruction of the men, women and children living in Pompeii, but won't cause the death of American soldiers.

DUH? Men, women, children, and soldiers die all the time, and for a variety of reasons.

There is a difference between a whole society being destroyed by fire, and a small portion of the soldiers of a society being killed in combat. Just because the folks of Westboro Baptist can't distinguish a difference (for reasons we won't speculate on), doesn't mean we aren't intelligent enough to do so.

[Jason]

1. The children that you are concerned about would not have existed but for the efforts of the gay/infertile couple. In other words, gay couples are not taking children away from their biological parents.

They are taking them away from at least one of their biological parents. Both, if the couple adopted rather than one of the couple being a biological parent of the children in question.

2. I have no doubt that couples who have desire and financial means to got to such efforts to procreate, whether gay or infertile, would likely be both capable and committed parents.

Not necessarily. Yes, it would seem more likely that such parents would be more committed to their children, but more capable?

3. Gay couples can presently use artificial means to concieve, even if they can't marry. Allowing gays to marry improves the situation, because children will have parents who are married.

This is only true if the benefits of marriage to children do not depend on both genders being present in the marriage.

[Jaybear]

They are taking them away from at least one of their biological parents. Both, if the couple adopted rather than one of the couple being a biological parent of the children in question.

They are not "taken away" in any meaningful, objectionable problematic sense.

Not necessarily.

I didn't say necessarily, I said more likely.

Yes, it would seem more likely that such parents would be more committed to their children, but more capable?

A couple has to be reasonable financially successful to undertake to conceive a child by artificial means or to adopt a child. Parents who are financially secure are more capable of providing food, clothing shelter and educational opportunities for their children than those who are struggling financially.

This is only true if the benefits of marriage to children do not depend on both genders being present in the marriage.

Why would they? Have you seen the list of the professional organizations that filed amicus briefs in opposition to gay marriage. None share your concern. Even the Prop 8 expert conceded under oath on cross exam that children being raised by gay couples would be better served if their parents could marry.

[Jason]

They are not "taken away" in any meaningful, objectionable problematic sense.

That is a pretty broad brush you are painting with there.

Are you really arguing that no same-sex couple or single homosexual parent has ever been granted custody of children againt the wishes of their biological parent(s)?

A couple has to be reasonable financially successful to undertake to conceive a child by artificial means or to adopt a child. Parents who are financially secure are more capable of providing food, clothing shelter and educational opportunities for their children than those who are struggling financially.

But financial status is not the end-all be-all of parenting skills. Otherwise Michael Jackson's kids would be considered some of the best off on the planet. And rich child stars would live happy, fulfilling lives.

Why would they? Have you seen the list of the professional organizations that filed amicus briefs in opposition to gay marriage. None share your concern. Even the Prop 8 expert conceded under oath on cross exam that children being raised by gay couples would be better served if their parents could marry.

Largely irrelevent. That specific people didn't make a specific legal argument does not mean that the argument has no merit, especially outside of a courtroom (like in reality).

I have seen many studies about gender models for children that conclude that the best situation for healthy development is one where both parents are present. No doubt there are other studies that conclude exactly the opposite. I choose to believe that they are both necessary because it seems a better fit for what I observe in my own life and that of others.

[Jaybear]

That is a pretty broad brush you are painting with there.

Are you really arguing that no same-sex couple or single homosexual parent has ever been granted custody of children againt the wishes of their biological parent(s)?

If that has occurred, and it may have following a divorce from an abusive spouse, it only occurred after a judicial finding that striping custodial rights of the parent(s) in the best interest of the child.

So even a rare exception to the usual manner in which gays adopt children does not support a claimed need to ban gay marriage.

But financial status is not the end-all be-all of parenting skills. Otherwise Michael Jackson's kids would be considered some of the best off on the planet. And rich child stars would live happy, fulfilling lives.

Of course not. There are always exceptions. But as a general rule, there is an undeniable clear relationship between poverty and children who struggle.

I have seen many studies about gender models for children that conclude that the best situation for healthy development is one where both parents are present. No doubt there are other studies that conclude exactly the opposite. I choose to believe that they are both necessary because it seems a better fit for what I observe in my own life and that of others.

So where were these experts when Prop 8 advocates put on their case in court. Not ready for prime time? As for personal experience, I know alot of heterosexual couples that are lousy parents. The few gay parents I know are all great parents.