Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[wenglund]

Myth #665 that mental/emotional/physical "illness" has anything, at all, to do with being born ss attracted. There has been absolutely no evidence to connect the dots that people are trying to connect, here, on these issues. That gays have more incidence of any of or all of those things, does not prove a causal relationship to simply being ss attracted. Societal attitudes and pressures are much more likely the major factors.

I don't know who you suppose is purporting myth #665, but it isn't me. Rather, I, in conjunction with Joshua's astute FAIR presentation, have drawn a critical distinction between attraction and desire and behavior. It is the latter two that I believe are the risk factors for the disproportional rate of mental/emotional/physical/etc. problems among homosexuals. Societal attitudes and pressure have little to do with it, as demonstrated in the busting of myth #4.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

It actually breaks my heart to see some of the ugly things that are claimed, and believed, about gays.

Libs just to give you the chance to respond before someone jumps in and draws any conclusion based on your limited comment, I will ask you if it also breaks your "heart to see some of the ugly things that are claimed, and believed, about" those of the "other side." (this subject is like walking through a minefield, don't you think?) Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Myth #28: The gay agenda in general, and SSM efforts in particular, is about equality and non-discrimination.

The same is not true with certain gay issues like SSM--which is why, in part, people in the civil rights movement object to gays comparing their circumstances to that of black (see the busting of myth #16).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well wade, like or not, this issue is exactly what the prop 8 case is about. So far, the courts have ruled twice that gay marriage has a strong case for unfair discrimination. Perhaps your side will do better with the Supreme Court. LIke I said it is your last shot, make it count. If you got any really great ideas, now is the time to send them into the legal team defending prop 8. Cause in the end, it is not about whether you agree with my reasons or I agree with yours. We aren't the ones wearing the black robe.

[Zeta-Flux]

Well wade, like or not, this issue is exactly what the prop 8 case is about. So far, the courts have ruled twice that gay marriage has a strong case for unfair discrimination. [emphasis added]

It seems to me that fundamental aspects of the first ruling were reversed by the appellate court. Do you disagree?

I will also add my personal prediction that, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, it will almost certainly not be along the lines given by the appellate court. Thus, in my opinion, neither ruling so far really gives a strong case for unfair discrimination.

My second prediction is that I think it is likely the Supreme Court will keep gender preference as a non-suspect classification. I'm a little less sure of this one, but I think it will be the central issue.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[CV75]

The institution of marriage is more than just a baby factory. Different marriage goals serve different needs. Not all of them are related to procreation.

I am more than happy to admit that we need heterosexual couples to bring children into this world. I didn't know there was a shortage of such occurrences.

While you now acknowledge that a civilization can only continue through procreation (and that this is the norm), you haven’t acknowledged that this is why authentic marriage has institutional status and imitations like SS”M" do not. That other purposes than procreation exist is irrelevant to the preminent purpose for its being an institution.

You are suggesting there is a need and yet a surplus of heterosexual couples by asserting there isn’t a shortage. This smacks of “heterophobic,” “anti-straight” sentiment, and even a call to control their numbers. But if there are just enough, or it doesn’t matter, then the one institution is sufficient. The number of hetero- and homosexual couples is actually irrelevant, just like your observation.

I also am happy to admit that civilization thrives when there is diversity. We should all be invited to the party. We all have value, even those homosexuals that are not the norm.

I think this must be one of the myths: that diversity in sexuality and human procreation are equally important, and this is why marriage has a role in sustaining both. That is really warped in my opinion.

[Libs]

Libs just to give you the chance to respond before someone jumps in and draws any conclusion based on your limited comment, I will ask you if it also breaks your "heart to see some of the ugly things that are claimed, and believed, about" those of the "other side." (this subject is like walking through a minefield, don't you think?)

Yes, I think there are misperceptions on both sides, but on this particular thread, I see it mostly against gays. I don't see anyone throwing around the "bigot" accusation, which is probably one of the most offensive things that come from supporters of ss marriage. But, that is probably due to the lopsided makeup of the board. I know some people who would go for the throat, if they saw some of these postings. )

It really is like walking through a mind field. I don't actually enjoy posting on this subject, much. It can be very inflammatory and divisive. It also, often, raises my blood pressure, when I read some of it.

[wenglund]

Myth #25? Doubtful. It's a matter of justice, as I see it. If the "traditional" marriage is already largely a thing of myth and legend, as I claim, then it is an injustice to raise an ideal that we already don't live up to and seek to impose it in one particular case. It's a very un-Christian sort of casuistry. "Physician, heal thyself," and motes and beams and whatnot.

First, legal marriage as it has traditionally been understood, isn't the ideal. Rather, it is reasonably viewed, as a result of eons of societal evolution, as the best secular familial structure currently available. The ideal, for believing LDS, is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise--i.e. divine/loving/righteous marriage.

Second, traditional legal marriage isn't being imposed. It is being promoted. No one is compelled to be legally married in the traditional sense (as an older single man who has yet to be married, I can personally vouch for this). Rather, traditional legal marriage is simply the right for a man and a woman to be legally recognized as married by the state, along with the advantages that this entails.

Third, the reason traditional legal marriage is being promoted is because, as previously indicated, it has been deemed the best secular familial structure available, and because persuasive reasons have been given suggesting that it is in societies interest to promote it.

Fourth, it is irrational to view it as an injustice when the state promotes something that, while not perfect, is the best available and tends to be in societies interest, even given its problems. Otherwise, to borrow from your "physician" metaphor, it would be like suggesting it is unjust for doctors to prescribe the most effective treatment at the time because they aren't 100% successful. It doesn't make sense.

Additionally, if SSM is symptomatic of a Marriage that has declined over the years (becoming increasingly abstract and less binding on those involved), then addressing the symptom (SSM) with a palliative (legislation) is counterproductive.

If you kill the symptoms of a disease, you can never know when a person is really healed. Systemic evil is that which cannot be detected; a cancer at the core of things that goes untreated because we are regulating symptoms.

But, I don't view SSM as symptomatic of the decline of traditional legal marriage. You have it exactly backwards. I view SSM supporters as envious of the enduring importance and significance and value of traditional legal marriage born out by societal evolution. This should seem obvious given the lengthy and strident efforts by gay activist to be included under the penumbra of legal marriage.

Therefore the correct response when a systemic problem with Marriage and families is revealed by the appearance of alternate marriages and alternate families, is not to attack the alternate marriages, but to fix Marriage. Then you end up with a healthy system where the alternates no longer belong--when we have taken off our blindfolds and started driving straight, then we can properly say that the blind can't have drivers licenses, and nobody raises a stink because it makes perfect sense at that point. Right now, it's very unclear and appears unjust to many people (understandably so, in my opinion) that we insist on prohibiting SSM.

Nonsense. Taking steps to improve the best secular familial structure available and minimize its problems, can be sensibly accomplished without the irrational need for opening the door to inferior familial structures with even greater problems. Otherwise, to again borrow your "physician" metaphor, it would be unjust for medical researchers and doctors to work to minimize the problems with the best available treatment programs and not offer inferior treatments with greater problems. This doesn't make sense.

Finally, I question your claims for the same-sex demographic. While the Conservative FRC publishes reports that apparently support them, progressive-leaning "think tanks" (such as AARDVARC) are quick to debunk those studies and make their own claims that put SS relationships more or less on equal footing with heterosexual ones. Whose experts to believe? I suppose whomever our bias predisposes us to believe.

I am afraid you are way over-generalizing, I don't think any reputable health professional disputes that homosexuals have a disproportional higher rate of suicides, mental/emotional/ health issues, and the like. What they tend to differ over is why homosexuals are at higher risk. Since my comments, that you responded to, speak to the former rather than the latter, your question isn't relevant. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Well wade, like or not, this issue is exactly what the prop 8 case is about.

So it seems.

Like I said earlier, even judges and justices can lack critical thinking skills at times and be vulnerable to pop culture bamboozles. Gay activist have been very creative and effective in creating the ruse, and it was just a matter of time and patience in creating a conducive atmosphere and shopping around and finding the right judges willing to ignore common sense in favor of emotive propaganda and buck the trend of having their cases overturned.

We will just have to wait and see how this plays out in the US Supreme Court, and what impact the ruling on California prop 8 may have nation wide.

Either way, I don't see it as the end of the process. If the gay activist lose, they will likely be back with another case in time, when there may be more justices on the court sympathetic to their cause. And, if the majority of California citizens lose, there is still other states that may be willing to muster a more formidable challenge (unlike California's governor and attorney general), and there is also the prospect of a U.S. Constitutional amendment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Verum]

First, legal marriage as it has traditionally been understood, isn't the ideal. Rather, it is reasonably viewed, as a result of eons of societal evolution, as the best secular familial structure. The ideal, for believing LDS, is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise--i.e. divine/loving/righteous marriage.

Second, traditional legal marriage isn't being imposed. It is being promoted. No one is compelled to be legally married in the traditional sense. Rather, traditional legal marriage are simply the right for a man and a woman to be legally recognized as a married by the state, along with the advantages that this entails.

I think many supporters of gay-marriage would pretty much agree with this. I believe the ideal is for every child to have a mother and a father, and therefore the "traditional" hetorosexual union is indeed the best secular familial structure to accomplish this and should be promoted. I think the difference though is how to handle those small minority whose nature and circumstances do not fit the ideal, and to not limit their freedoms so that that perhaps in their less ideal situation they can still pursue their own happiness through companionship and love. This applies not just to same-sex marriages, but for adoption of children for same-sex couples. It's a good solution to managing a somewhat less ideal situation where children need homes of safe and responsible parents.

I agree though with the myths that being anti gay marriage means you are anti-gay, or homophobic. This is a strategic ploy in the media to paint such views on the poorest light possible.

[CV75]

how to handle those small minority whose nature and circumstances do not fit the ideal, and to not limit their freedoms so that that perhaps in their less ideal situation they can still pursue their own happiness through companionship and love. This applies not just to same-sex marriages, but for adoption of children for same-sex couples.

I agree, though I disagree that using the institution of marriage is a proper vehicle for accomplishing this.

For something to attain institutional status, it must meet the criteria of being a norm and vital to civilization. The institution of traditional marriage meets these criteria because efficient and effective procreation and protection of the young is he only way civilization can continue.

Homosexual partnerships are not the norm, prevent procreation and depend on heterosexual procreation for the provision of a partner and for the privilege to adopt at-risk children in order to approximate / imitate the marriage and family arrangements, all for the purpose of pursuing their own happiness. This is why same-sex marriage is not institutionalized.

The proponents of same sex marriage argue from the standpoint of diversity and equality since they can only enjoy the less vital, non-procreative aspects of the marriage institution. Placing sexual diversity on a par with procreation as a criterion for institutionalizing SSS“M” undermines the #1 priority to perpetuate the civilization and instead detrimentally institutionalizes the placement of personal interests above the greater good.

Homosexuals can still go about their lives without institutionalizing the lifestyle and also should be able to enjoy every civil right.

[wenglund]

I think many supporters of gay-marriage would pretty much agree with this. I believe the ideal is for every child to have a mother and a father, and therefore the "traditional" hetorosexual union is indeed the best secular familial structure to accomplish this and should be promoted. I think the difference though is how to handle those small minority whose nature and circumstances do not fit the ideal, and to not limit their freedoms so that that perhaps in their less ideal situation they can still pursue their own happiness through companionship and love.

I can appreciate what you are saying.

However, there are no freedoms being restricted in reserving legal marriages to just the best familial option. Legal marriage isn't a prohibition on freedoms or liberty, but rather the government giving its seal of approval to relationships it deems in its interest to do so.

Granted, there are benefits attendant to the seal of approval, And, for those children and couples who find themselves in less than the best familial option, the way for governments to address these concern, and sensibly avail them of certain benefits, isn't to neutralize or dilute the incentives deemed in everyone's interest, but to find some alternative that makes cost/benefit sense--as in the case of single mothers and common law relationships. In other words, it doesn't make sense to extend legal marriage to what many of us deem the inferior familial structure of same-sex couples, since that would neutralize or dilute the governmental incentive that is in our best interest, and instead find other alternatives that may work.

What many may fail to consider in this regard, is that many same-sex couples involve partners and children from a previous heterosexual marriage. In other words, families that were once structured in the evolutionary best way available, were broken apart by people leaving for an evolutionary inferior structure. It doesn't make sense to me, particularly if we care about the health and welfare of the children, to unwittingly encourage this kind of devolutionary move by giving marital incentive to enter into the inferior familial structure. What makes sense is to encourage people, particularly for the sake of the children, to find, where feasible, a healthy way to remain in the superior familial structure (Joshua's FAIR presentation provides thoughts and examples of how this may be done).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

While you now acknowledge that a civilization can only continue through procreation (and that this is the norm), you haven’t acknowledged that this is why authentic marriage has institutional status and imitations like SS”M" do not. That other purposes than procreation exist is irrelevant to the preminent purpose for its being an institution.

lol You act as it if was difficult to agree that children come from heterosexuals. I don't think that anyone disagrees as to where children come from. What I am not agreeing to is that there is a relationship between having children and being married. There is none. Never has been. Children do not come from heterosexuals being married. Ask your parents, they will explain. Like I said before, there are many reasons for getting married. Raising a family is a very good reason for getting married whether you are straight or gay. I encourage all who want to raise children to get married. Yes, even gay couples. Let's hope these children receive the blessings of marriage as well.

You are suggesting there is a need and yet a surplus of heterosexual couples by asserting there isn’t a shortage. This smacks of “heterophobic,” “anti-straight” sentiment, and even a call to control their numbers. But if there are just enough, or it doesn’t matter, then the one institution is sufficient. The number of hetero- and homosexual couples is actually irrelevant, just like your observation.

Boy you really had to reach for that one didn't you. I hope you don't really believe that. I will chalk it up to the heat of the moment.

I think this must be one of the myths: that diversity in sexuality and human procreation are equally important, and this is why marriage has a role in sustaining both. That is really warped in my opinion.

Sorry I wasn't even thinking of sexuality. This might surprise you, but gay people think of other things besides sex. I was thinking more about what gay men and women have done in the arts, literature, music, in creating jobs feeding the poor and helping to end war.

[pmccombs1]

First, legal marriage as it has traditionally been understood, isn't the ideal. Rather, it is reasonably viewed, as a result of eons of societal evolution, as the best secular familial structure currently available. The ideal, for believing LDS, is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise--i.e. divine/loving/righteous marriage.

Second, traditional legal marriage isn't being imposed. It is being promoted. No one is compelled to be legally married in the traditional sense (as an older single man who has yet to be married, I can personally vouch for this). Rather, traditional legal marriage is simply the right for a man and a woman to be legally recognized as married by the state, along with the advantages that this entails.

Third, the reason traditional legal marriage is being promoted is because, as previously indicated, it has been deemed the best secular familial structure available, and because persuasive reasons have been given suggesting that it is in societies interest to promote it.

Fourth, it is irrational to view it as an injustice when the state promotes something that, while not perfect, is the best available and tends to be in societies interest, even given its problems. Otherwise, to borrow from your "physician" metaphor, it would be like suggesting it is unjust for doctors to prescribe the most effective treatment at the time because they aren't 100% successful. It doesn't make sense.

If marriage as a secular, legal fiction is all we have to defend, then prepare to lose the SSM battle. I just don't think the controversial evidences for dysfunctional SS families are going to significantly tilt the debate for long when we have lesbian couples raising kids that have as-good-or-better social outcomes than some of their traditionally-raised peers. With marriage in the state it is today, "the best available" is sure inviting a serious look at alternatives! With the failure rate as it is, it's about time to disband this whole secular and legal debacle anyway--what a disaster. Whatever we're doing to "promote" this isn't working.

But, I don't view SSM as symptomatic of the decline of traditional legal marriage. You have it exactly backwards. I view SSM supporters as envious of the enduring importance and significance and value of traditional legal marriage born out by societal evolution. This should seem obvious given the lengthy and strident efforts by gay activist to be included under the penumbra of legal marriage.

It's not backwards. It's not so much a sense of envy as it is a sense of injustice. These are people who feel slighted. The reason they feel slighted is that marriage, and its legal benefits, are being granted to people who can make a mockery of the institution while reaping the legal benefits. And we're still saying we deserve it more than they do, and making up dubious stories about them that say they'll make it even worse.

Nonsense. Taking steps to improve the best secular familial structure available and minimize its problems, can be sensibly accomplished without the irrational need for opening the door to inferior familial structures with even greater problems. Otherwise, to again borrow your "physician" metaphor, it would be unjust for medical researchers and doctors to work to minimize the problems with the best available treatment programs and not offer inferior treatments with greater problems. This doesn't make sense.

But I don't think the claim of "inferior familial structures with even greater problems" is remotely established, nor even "best secular familial structure." That's speculation. The whole problem stems from looking at things as secular in the first place. This "societal evolution" you speak of... you it's latest invention? That bit a bout "secular." That's the nonsense. Make something secular, and look what happens. We've cast our pearls before the swine; that's where your so-called "envy" comes from.

I am afraid you are way over-generalizing, I don't think any reputable health professional disputes that homosexuals have a disproportional higher rate of suicides, mental/emotional/ health issues, and the like. What they tend to differ over is why homosexuals are at higher risk. Since my comments, that you responded to, speak to the former rather than the latter, your question isn't relevant. Sorry.

Anyway, this argument invites a marriage privelege that is decided based on a secondary, correlated fact. It isn't the homosexuality, but the correlation to higher risk of adverse effects such as suicides and mental health issues. We'd have to withold marriage from more than just homosexuals at this point, for there are surely other segments of the population at greater risk for suicide and mental health issues (etc.) beyond just homosexuals. It all has a very Third-Reich feel to it.

You know, if we only have a secular and legal institution, then marriage licenses really are like drivers licenses, and they ought to be regulated on the back end as much as they are on the front end. Are you messing up your marriage? Then the state revokes the license! Sorry, applies to heterosexuals too... let's make the prerequisites for holding a marriage license based on outcomes rather than risks.

What outcome is the state promoting? Make that the relevant question. It's justice.

[california boy]

I can appreciate what you are saying.

However, there are no freedoms being restricted in reserving legal marriages to just the best familial option. Legal marriage isn't a prohibition on freedoms or liberty, but rather the government giving its seal of approval to relationships it deems in its interest to do so.

There is one major flaw to this statement. The government does not have any say and makes no requirement as to what straight couples get married. They allow murderers, rapists, child abusers drug addicts, and any other criminal to be married. You could murder your first wife and all your children and still be allowed to mary if you are straight. The government also allows those that have a complete disregard for the institution of marriage including serial divorcees, Britney Spears, people that want Elvis to marry them and those that find out they have been married after they have sobered up. To say that the government restricts and reserves legal marriage to just the best familial option is well just not true is it. If you are straight, you qualify. That is what needs to change.

[Ares]

Avoid personal remarks and if you see them, don't board nanny just report them so the mods can take care of it.

[wenglund]

If marriage as a secular, legal fiction is all we have to defend, then prepare to lose the SSM battle.

First, legal marriage isn't a fiction except perhaps in your fertile imagination. There is a rather large body of law built on the very real notion of marriage and family.

Second, you evidently have uncritically bought into myth #10: The onus for answering legal questions [and making a reasoned case] is on those favoring the status quo rather than on those proposing change; whereas, the opposite is rationally the case. When governments first got into the marriage business, it was for reasons that were justified at the time. And, generally, at least with democracies, the reasons had to do with it being in the states interest. They made their case for the proposed changes to the status quo, and the changes were voted on and passed at that time, and the reasonings and actions have remained in force through the duration. The onus was on them to make the changes back then. Now that gay advocates wish to change the long-standing laws, it then is incumbent upon them, as with everyone else, to make their case for change, and have it voted upon. Since they don't have a sensible or beneficial case to make, they then are left to ply the myth in question.

You have also evidently uncritically bought into myth #11: There has never been a legitimate [defense against and] legal answer to the question of SSM [offered by those wishing to preserve traditional legal marriage]....when in actual fact, [rational and] legal arguments were presented [to the general public and] in each of the legislatures of the past where marriage legislation was enacted, and even more recently in the cases of state and federal DOMA's and other related marital laws, and there have been a number of cases through the years and brought by gay advocates challenging these state and federal laws, where [public and] legal arguments were presented and the existing legislation upheld. Since these legal arguments work against the gay agenda, the gay advocates are left to spread the myth that these arguments don't exist [or that the only argument is defending the so-called fiction of legal marriage--whatever that means].

I just don't think the controversial evidences for dysfunctional SS families are going to significantly tilt the debate for long when we have lesbian couples raising kids that have as-good-or-better social outcomes than some of their traditionally-raised peers.

Even if so (its debatable), as indicated above, the debate ought not tilt on the alleged social outcomes of but a portion of the homosexual community, but on whether the costs of the state legalizing SSM is off-set by the benefits. To date, this case has yet to be convincingly made, if at all.

Beside, whether intended or not, your mention of lesbian couples works against the proposition of legalizing their relationships as marriages. If we accept your premise that "lesbian couples raising kids...have as-good-or-better social outcomes," and this without legalizing their relationships as marriages, then there is no point in the state incurring the additional costs of that legalization. The state supposedly already has the benefits of lesbian parenting without the costs to the state.

With marriage in the state it is today, "the best available" is sure inviting a serious look at alternatives!

Actually, again, social evolution has already made that determination. The sensible approach now, rather than reinventing the wheel, is to determine how to improve upon the best and minimize the problems. We do that, not by devolving and adding worse problems to the mix, but by crafting legislation and teaching precepts that will discourage the existing problems, thus making the best even better.

With the failure rate as it is, it's about time to disband this whole secular and legal debacle anyway--what a disaster. Whatever we're doing to "promote" this isn't working.

Your extraordinarily myopic and fatalistic view notwithstanding, marriage rates are still respectably high, and divorce rates are lower than the alternatives, and traditional families, particularly those with two loving and caring parents of the opposite sex, are faring quite well, not to mention that our population continues to grow. It isn't perfect, but then it isn't all bad either.

It's not backwards. It's not so much a sense of envy as it is a sense of injustice.

Wrong. You are just repeating yourself in spite of being reasonably shown otherwise.

But I don't think the claim of "inferior familial structures with even greater problems" is remotely established, nor even "best secular familial structure."

The view of the people, the legislatures, and the courts, overwhelmingly suggest otherwise. You, of course, are free to close your eyes or bury your head in the sand.

The whole problem stems from looking at things as secular in the first place. This "societal evolution" you speak of... you it's latest invention? That bit a bout "secular." That's the nonsense. Make something secular, and look what happens. We've cast our pearls before the swine; that's where your so-called "envy" comes from.

I am sorry, but your comments are remarkably naive and inane. Take some time and study the history of marriage and families, particularly the why governments got into the business of marriage. There are rational reasons why marriage and families are socially the way they are today as contrasted with how they were back in even in Old Testament times. There is a reason these entities have evolved. I am not the one inventing the notion of social evolution. Rather it is the social evolutionists/anthropologist that I am borrowing from.

Furthermore, governments, or at least democracies, are secular by nature, and as such, the reasoning by which they legislate and adjudicate and govern is, of necessity, secular. So, the best, if not the only generally accepted, arguments to make regarding the secular, are secular.

Anyway, this argument invites a marriage privelege that is decided based on a secondary, correlated fact. It isn't the homosexuality, but the correlation to higher risk of adverse effects such as suicides and mental health issues. We'd have to withold marriage from more than just homosexuals at this point, for there are surely other segments of the population at greater risk for suicide and mental health issues (etc.) beyond just homosexuals. It all has a very Third-Reich feel to it.

No. Again, you are terribly confused. We aren't talking about eliminating segments of the population who are inferior, or anything of the sort. We are talking about whether it makes sense to, after several centuries, selectively extend legalized marriage to inferior familial structures.

I was going to mark your nonsense as a myth, but figured it would make more sense to rightly identify it as a clear violation of Goodwin's law.

You know, if we only have a secular and legal institution, then marriage licenses really are like drivers licenses, and they ought to be regulated on the back end as much as they are on the front end. Are you messing up your marriage? Then the state revokes the license! Sorry, applies to heterosexuals too... let's make the prerequisites for holding a marriage license based on outcomes rather than risks.

I don't object to your suggestion in theory. However, I don't think it will work in practice, and will likely create far more administrative and judicial costs than benefits, and thus it doesn't make sense. It is also beside the point.

What outcome is the state promoting? Make that the relevant question. It's justice.

No. At least with legalized marriage, it is greater benefits than costs. The sooner you get this, the better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

Even if so (its debatable), as indicated above, the debate ought not tilt on the alleged social outcomes of but a portion of the homosexual community, but on whether the costs of the state legalizing SSM is off-set by the benefits. To date, this case has yet to be convincingly made, if at all.

Beside, whether intended or not, your mention of lesbian couples works against the proposition of legalizing their relationships as marriages. If we accept your premise that "lesbian couples raising kids...have as-good-or-better social outcomes," and this without legalizing their relationships as marriages, then there is no point in the state incurring the additional costs of that legalization. The state supposedly already has the benefits of lesbian parenting without the costs to the state.

See this isn't about legalizing anything. The real intent is forcing acceptance by the public at large.

[CV75]

What I am not agreeing to is that there is a relationship between having children and being married.

As much as you need to avoid talking about it (hence conveying a “heterophobic” sentiment), traditional marriage is the institutionalized norm of couples bearing and raising children because these activities are fundamental to civilization. The “many other reasons for getting married” are not the reason that marriage is an institution, and while both traditional and SS“M” accommodate these alternate reasons, SS"M" and its reasons do not warrant the same status as authentic marriage, which is for men and women to receive as a couple.

SS“M” is parasitical in that it draws upon heterosexual relationships to provide a same-sex partner, and relies upon misfortune to provide a supply of children to adopt. while it permits it, traditional marriage was not set up for couples to get married with the intent to seek children to adopt, but SS"M" is adoption-dependent for couples who intend to raise children. It relies on the prime institution of marriage while not contributing at all to bearing and raising their own children.

Boy you really had to reach for that one didn't you. I hope you don't really believe that. I will chalk it up to the heat of the moment.

well, you did point out there are enough heterosexual couples and their offspring. My point is that the number of hetero- and homosexual couples is irrelevant to the discussion. Your observation that it does indicates that evaluating and controlling numbers a consideration. Maybe you just haven’t thought about what you are saying beyond the immediate gratification of a personal want.

Sorry I wasn't even thinking of sexuality. This might surprise you, but gay people think of other things besides sex. I was thinking more about what gay men and women have done in the arts, literature, music, in creating jobs feeding the poor and helping to end war.

But we are discussing same-sex "marriage", which has everything to do with sexuality and nothing to do with the arts, literature, music, creating jobs, feeding the poor and helping to end war. Who needs marriage to do those things?

So here we have yet another myth: the contributions of gay people to bettering the world and human procreation are equally important, and this is why the institution of marriage has a role in sustaining both. This is also really warped in my opinion.

[Zakuska]

well, you did point out there are enough heterosexual couples and their offspring. My point is that the number of hetero- and homosexual couples is irrelevant to the discussion. Your observation that it does indicates that evaluating and controlling numbers a consideration. Maybe you just haven’t thought about what you are saying beyond the immediate gratification of a personal want.

Hmmm... Maybe we have just found a solution to the Chinese population control problem!!!?

[wenglund]

There is one major flaw to this statement. The government does not have any say and makes no requirement as to what straight couples get married. They allow murderers, rapists, child abusers drug addicts, and any other criminal to be married. You could murder your first wife and all your children and still be allowed to marry if you are straight. The government also allows those that have a complete disregard for the institution of marriage including serial divorcees, Britney Spears, people that want Elvis to marry them and those that find out they have been married after they have sobered up. To say that the government restricts and reserves legal marriage to just the best familial option is well just not true is it. If you are straight, you qualify. That is what needs to change.

Let's call this myth #27: It is wrong for governments to reserve legal marriages to just the best familial option (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) because there are heterosexuals who are murderers, criminals, serial divorcées, and who have a disregard for that familial option.

Whereas, these supposed specific flaws are actually moot to this issue and to what I said because not only are we not talking about perfect familial options, but we are talking about judging which familial option is best, for practical reason in relation to governmental purposes, on balance and as a general rule, and not in terms of specific exceptions like those you listed. Each and every one of the familial options, including same-sex marriage or civil unions, are viewed in general terms and are thus unavoidably open to murderers, abusers, drug addicts, any other criminal, and those who have a disregard for the various familial options, and potential serial divorcées. That is why, in relation to SSM, I didn't mention specific cases like Jeffery Dahmer or Ellen Degeneres, etc., because, as with the specifics you listed, they aren't pertinent. As I indicated to pmccoombs1, it isn't feasible for governments to consider and regulate marriage to that specific degree. It wouldn't make cost/benefit sense. Other laws, like those against murder, are better suited to address those specific problems.

Unfortunately for gay advocates, when familial structures are judged on balance and as a general rule, societal evolution makes clear that homosexual familial structures don't fare very well, if at all, in comparison to traditional marriages. I believe the gay advocates understand and accept this, which is why I believe they back away from making a state interest case. Common sense is against them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So here we have yet another myth: the contributions of gay people to bettering the world and human procreation are equally important, and this is why the institution of marriage has a role in sustaining both. This is also really warped in my opinion.

Let's call this myth #28.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Looks like Fox News is not even buying into the idea that we have to discriminate against gays. Where are we as a country when even Fox News starts to walk away from this policy against gay marriage.

The Gay Rights Revolution Arrives At Fox News

"This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Why is gay marriage any different?" she asked.

[Storm Rider]

I guess if I was really wanting to change this behavior, the first thing I would push for is to allow and actually encourage gays to marry and form more committed relationships. Just think what morals the straight population would have if they were not allowed to marry. Statistically those that do not marry in the straight community have many of the same problems with immorality and the effects of that as the gay community. There is a very parallel comparison for many of the same reasons. The current structure is definitely a major contributor to this issue.

From someone who is gay and i guess lives in that community, I can tell you that there is a lot of distortion about "the gay lifestyle". All of my gay friends live pretty normal lives. They all have jobs. They are well educated. A couple of them are doctors. One works for the state government in a very high capacity, one is the CEO of a bank until recently. He just retired after 15 years as CEO. One works for HBO in a executive level position. A couple work for high tech companies. One of them is an accountant. One is an architect. One is a department manager at Macy's. All of them are actually very responsible members of society. None of them have any drug problems. Their behavior is not self destructive. They are all very comfortable with who they are. None of them have adopted children. One couple is thinking about it. None of them go to church. Most of them have faith in God, but have no use for organized religion. Only one of them smokes. Quite a few of them volunteer regularly at food bank type kitchens and have found community service to be their religion. Most drink alcohol. Quite a few smoke marijuana occasionally. None do hard drugs. None go to rave parties and drop ecstasy. Some are active in gay political policies. Most are not. Only two couples are legally married. Some are in long term relationships. The longest is 40 years. His partner just died within the last couple of months of heart failure. He was in his 80's. Yeah these are just my friends and maybe I am a bit picky about who I want as my friends. This is the "gay community" to me.

I do think things are changing quite dramatically within the gay culture. More young people seem to have more hope of forming family units and more solid relationships. They are not so susceptible to the labeling that past generations of gay men have endured. They think of themselves more equal to straight couples and have not been pushed away so much from traditional values. Some churches are beginning to welcome gays into their congregations and include them more in constructive faith environments. Things will change, but a lot of damage has been done.

Thanks for asking. I think it is a legitimate issue to bring up. Since you are probably against gay marriage, what concrete steps do you see to change this behavior?

My personal position is that government should play no role in any marriage. Marriage is a religious covenant, rite, or sacrament. Governments should only be allowed to license civil unions for all, which I support regardless of gender or number of participants.

As far as the caliber of individuals within our community, regardless of sexual preference, they run from the gifted to those far less gifted. No one on this board has ever attempted, to my knowledge, to state that gay people were not bright, intelligent, individuals (along with those that are the opposite). Like you, I have many wonderful gay friends and some of them are very moral people, but the percentage of them is quite high that have gone through periods (shorter and longer) of sexual permissiveness or at best extremely casual with having partners. I believe they are just normal gay men that are honest about their lives and the culture in which they live.

Marriage does not dictate chastity or lead individuals to choose being committed to another; these are personal choices and have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

My concern remains that one of the fundamental ways of being a gay person is break all social mores and to allow one's personal passions free reign; to overcome any sense of guilt for being a sexual hedonist. The problem is that it is impossible to overcome guilt produced by sin. Society's acceptance of any lifestyle cannot do this. The only way to excise guilt from one's life is to stop the overt sins; choosing to live a moral life; repenting of those things we do wrong. I wish it could be different at times, but it is not. God lives and our spirits are meant for greater things than to have them dominated by the sins of the flesh.

[wenglund]

Well wade, like or not, this issue [i.e. non-discrimination and equality] is exactly what the prop 8 case is about.

That is an illusion. Ironically, it is really about just the opposite. Let me explain:

Over the years, and as a function of judicial review, the Supreme Court has developed an extra constitution method for scrutinizing executive and legislative acts to determine if they violate the constitution--in this case, particularly the 5th and 14th amendments (Due process and Equal Protection clauses).

The reasoning behind this method of scrutiny is, in part, recognition by the court that laws, by their very nature, are to varying degrees discriminatory and unequal in their treatment, and in most cases, rightly so. This method is intended to distinguish between those that are rightly discriminatory and those that aren't.

This method consist of, as a general rule, scrutinizing laws using a Rational Basis test, which essential entails: "the law is constitutional so long as it is 'reasonably related' to a 'legitimate' government interest."

However, this method also contains exceptions to the rule, where select classes of people are given special treatment, and the scrutiny in these cases is either Intermediate (cases where laws are categorized based on sex) or Strict (cases where laws categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right). In other words, this method discriminates in favor of certain classes of people and gives them unequally better scrutiny under the law.

The plaintiffs' case against Prop 8 essentially argues that homosexuality (both as a status and as an act) should be included as one of the classifications to receive special treatment, and laws related thereto be scrutinized not according to the general rule, but according to the exceptions. They want the court, in their judicial review, to discriminate in favor of homosexuality, and to treat homosexuals unequally better than other classes of people.

In short, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, aren't looking to outlaw discrimination and inequality, but are requesting selective discrimination and inequality in their favor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 9, 2012 by wenglund

[USU78]

Given that the best predictors for poverty, crime and recidivism are the lack of an intact nuclear family and substance abuse . . . you'd think there'd be a way for the liberty clause in the US Constitution to at least give a nod to both these notions instead of furthering the narcissistic Cult of the Individual.

Unless . . . Heaven forfend . . . poverty, crime and recidivism are the goal of policymakers.

Then it all makes perfect sense.