Music For Marriage Equality Campaign

[Zeta-Flux]

Sexual orientation is inborn. You're born with a predisposition to a certain sexual attraction and proclivities.

While that is true of a majority of people, about 90-95%, who are simply attracted to the opposite sex, it is also true that a large percentage of the rest (the other 5-10%) have attractions to both genders. Edited October 10, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Lamanite]

Still following. I appreciate the spirited debate.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Sexual orientation is inborn.

This dogmatic assertion is still open to reasonable dispute, and as bloit evinced, it is becoming increasing more open to dispute with further investigation.

However, while this dispute may be a point of curiosity for some (including me), it is pretty much irrelevant to the SSM debate (particularly the argument I have presented), and merely serves as a propagandistic distraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

Wade (Or anyone). Just trying to simplify things a bit.

1. What is the primary purpose(s) for government getting involved in what was traditionally a religious union. (Agree that different religions define marriage differently?) Try as hard as you can to simplify your answer, I'm struggling to follow along.

2. Is our government extending rights to those who get married or are they protecting rights?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Damien the Leper]

While that is true of a majority of people, about 90-95%, who are simply attracted to the opposite sex, it is also true that a large percentage of the rest (the other 5-10%) have attractions to both genders.

I can't even begin to understand nor explain bisexuality. That is part of the gray area that I don't tread often because I don't know what it is that I should learn from it.

For my life alone, I am glad to say that there never was any kind of sexual abuse or parental issues that could have some how 'swayed' my sexual orientation.

[Damien the Leper]

This dogmatic assertion is still open to reasonable dispute, and as bloit evinced, it is becoming increasing more open to dispute with further investigation.

However, while this dispute may be a point of curiosity for some (including me), it is pretty much irrelevant to the SSM debate (particularly the argument I have presented), and merely serves as a propagandistic distraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How about you take the time to understand that my post was in no way a response to anything you have said. I have little to no use for your brand of propaganda, Wade. Keep in mind that this thread isn't about your opinions and conclusions. Your argument is irrelevant to my post. Perhaps you should more closely read my post as I discuss several different subjects that could influence sexual expression or orientation.

However, to answer your 'dispute' concerning sexual orientation...heterosexuality is inborn. It is not chosen or necessarily nurtured. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too.

[Damien the Leper]

Wade (Or anyone). Just trying to simplify things a bit.

1. What is the primary purpose(s) for government getting involved in what was traditionally a religious union. (Agree that different religions define marriage differently?) Try as hard as you can to simplify your answer, I'm struggling to follow along.

2. Is our government extending rights to those who get married or are they protecting rights?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Religion has only been the primary vessel by which marriage was attained. I have seen little to no evidence of secular marriages that occurred more than 2000 years ago. This, however, does not mean that religion has the final say on the matter. Allowing for gay marriage is giving rights and protecting those rights of individuals who want to marry. Usually this is where certain anti-gay marriage propagandists and bigots throw in slippery slope marriages and affections to attempt to advance their argument albeit ad nauseum. Where these propagandists think they are making a point they are in fact demonstrating their ignorance and intolerance for anything that is outside of the fallacious "norm" or "status quo". It's really quite pretentious and asinine.

Religions want the liberty to practice and believe how they see fit but refuse to back out of political issues based on their ideas of morality. The U.S. government needs to be secularized from the lobbyists and ignoramuses that make up the Tea Party and their like minded ilk.

[CV75]

1. What is the primary purpose(s) for government getting involved in what was traditionally a religious union. (Agree that different religions define marriage differently?) Try as hard as you can to simplify your answer, I'm struggling to follow along.

2. Is our government extending rights to those who get married or are they protecting rights?

Q1: Depending on the society, marriage was historically either a practical/politcal, secular or religious tradition and/or institution, or a combination of any or all three. Governments naturally get involved as an extention of its host culture and as the society develops politically, secularly and religiously.

Q2: The US government is extending legal recognition of certain types of marriage, reflecting the will of the people as expressed in a democratic constitutional republic.

Edited October 10, 2012 by CV75

[Lamanite]

Q1: Depending on the society, marriage was historically either a practical/politcal, secular or religious tradition and/or institution, or a combination of any or all three. Governments naturally get involved as an extention of its host culture and as the society develops politically, secularly and religiously.

Q2: The US government is extending legal recognition of certain types of marriage, reflecting the will of the people as expressed in a democratic constitutional republic.

Q1- So lets narrow the focus to the U.S. Why Is the United States involved in extending/protecting rights/privileges of marriage? It seems plain to me that who we marry is an intensly personal issue between myself and my partner, and perhaps my religion.

Q2- Why have we given the government the power to legislate "types" of marriage?

To all who respond please keep it simple. (I was completely lost for a couple of pages.) It seems to me that these types of questions could be answered in a few sentences or less.

Big UP!

lAMMANITE

[wenglund]

Wade (Or anyone). Just trying to simplify things a bit.

1. What is the primary purpose(s) for government getting involved in what was traditionally a religious union?

First of all, governments have been regulating marriages for several thousand years. This predates formal involvement of Christian religious clergy by hundreds of years.

Second, in answer to your question, governments initially got involved in regulating marriages so as to lessen the burden on the courts in adjudicating property and inheritance issues. Later, governments got involved so as to codify public morays and to promote, protect, and strengthen the foundational institution of society--the family (traditionally consisting of a father, mother, and children).

2. Is our government extending rights to those who get married or are they protecting rights?

The government extends/confers the right to marry to qualified couples by enacting marital laws. Once the law is enacted and the right thereby conferred to qualified individuals, the government protects that right by executing and adjudicating the law.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

How about you take the time to understand that my post was in no way a response to anything you have said. I have little to no use for your brand of propaganda, Wade. Keep in mind that this thread isn't about your opinions and conclusions. Your argument is irrelevant to my post. Perhaps you should more closely read my post as I discuss several different subjects that could influence sexual expression or orientation.

Since you seem to be unaware, let me kindly inform you of the obvious fact that this is a public discussion board, and a relatively open forum, and this is a thread in which I am a welcomed, active, if not primary participant. This means that I, as well as you and any other registered participant, can pick and choose which posts in a given thread we wish to respond to whether the posts were expressly addressed to us or not.

And, my reasonable response to your irrelevant comments were informed, warranted, and entirely appropriate, and cannot logically be interpreted as suggesting that your post was in response to what I had said, or that I think this thread is just about my opinions, or that it matters to me what you may think of my follow-up comments.

However, to answer your 'dispute' concerning sexual orientation...heterosexuality is inborn. It is not chosen or necessarily nurtured. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too.

Let me repeat: your dogmatic assertions are still open to reasoned debate, and they have become increasingly more so with further investigation. I am not sure how my consistent position somehow implies that I want my cake and eat it too. And, were this not tangential to the topic of this thread, I would ask you to explain, but since it is tangential, I will simply close my small part in it by wishing you a good day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Usually this is where certain anti-gay marriage propagandists and bigots throw in slippery slope marriages and affections to attempt to advance their argument albeit ad nauseum.

Given that no one has yet to raise this argument on this thread, but have instead carefully set forth a well reasoned legal argument that has oft been upheld by the legislatures and courts and remains yet to be directly challenged by anyone on this thread; and given how irresponsibly you are now tossing around the "bigot" label; it appears that you are the one ironically engaging in propaganda.

It takes no small measure of hubris for you to try and poison the well with a straw man and to also appeal to emotion by illegitimately evoking inflammatory stereotypes, all in a single paragraph. Were you supposing anyone would be fooled?

Where these propagandists think they are making a point they are in fact demonstrating their ignorance and intolerance for anything that is outside of the fallacious "norm" or "status quo". It's really quite pretentious and asinine.

Again, given the evidence, it appears that you are once again projecting.

Religions want the liberty to practice and believe how they see fit but refuse to back out of political issues based on their ideas of morality.

Imagine that. Religionists believe they have constitutionally protected liberties as well as the constitutional right to vote according to their conscience. Are we supposed to see this as problematic in any way?

The U.S. government needs to be secularized from the lobbyists and ignoramuses that make up the Tea Party and their like minded ilk.

Perhaps you could justify your dogmatic and intolerant wish, though on another thread. For starters, you might explain what the Tea Party has to do with the SSM debate (it isn't mentioned in their 10-point platform), and why they, as a legitimate, non-religious political organizations, should be included in your banal secular purge of religionists from government involvement.

Or is this simply your lame attempt to inflame and insult in order to get a perfectly reasonable thread closed down because you don't like the compelling direction it has taking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Q1- So lets narrow the focus to the U.S. Why Is the United States involved in extending/protecting rights/privileges of marriage?

As explained, the reasons that have been given in legislative and judicial hearings are: 1) to encourage procreative couples to enter into formally committed, stable, and longterm relationships, and 2) promote the ideal familial structure--consisting of a biological father and mother and children.

It seems plain to me that who we marry is an intensely personal issue between myself and my partner, and perhaps my religion.

This is true on a personal level, and the government doesn't involve itself in making such specific or personal choices. Rather, the government is only involved at the general, public policy level, and it is simply deciding for itself, not us, who it will deem in the people's interest to sanction and promote.

Q2- Why have we given the government the power to legislate "types" of marriage?

See above. The rationale for the government legislating marriage is directly tied to marriage "types." It makes sense for the government to promote committed heterosexual relationships and traditional families, whereas it doesn't make sense for them to promote SSM and less ideal familial structures.

Is that simple enough?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Lamanite]

Yeah....that's simple enough. Give me a bit to marinate.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Q1- So lets narrow the focus to the U.S. Why Is the United States involved in extending/protecting rights/privileges of marriage? It seems plain to me that who we marry is an intensly personal issue between myself and my partner, and perhaps my religion.

Q2- Why have we given the government the power to legislate "types" of marriage?

Q1 - The US marriage laws have their root in English law, and further back, Anglo-Saxon tradition and law, and presumably they got it from the Germaic peoples who got it from the remnants of the tribes of Israel (maybe not but it goes back rather far in time). Modern Americans have accepted the net effect of the forces of practicality (economics and by extension, politics), tradition, and religion. The principle of public virtue, which is required for good government, places low priority on strictly personal consideration, need and satisfaction.

Q2 - The US Constitution allows the people through its representaive form of government to grant the government the power to regulate marriage. Article V allows ammendments, but there are checks and balances in tha process to prevent hasty abuse and go contray to the will of the people, which is a product and contributor to the overall nation's political, traditional and religious values.

[Lamanite]

to encourage procreative couples to enter into formally committed, stable, and longterm relationships,

I understand the operative word may be "encourage", but I can't see how the government's encouragement would contribute to or influence a couple's relationship in terms of commitment, stability, or length of relationship.

2) promote the ideal familial structure--consisting of a biological father and mother and children.

If the government removed itself entirely from marriage do you think the "familial structure" of the family would disintegrate?

See above. The rationale for the government legislating marriage is directly tied to marriage "types." It makes sense for the government to promote committed heterosexual relationships and traditional families, whereas it doesn't make sense for them to promote SSM and less ideal familial structures.

Is there any empirical data that supports the idea that SSM or less familial structures would have a negative impact on those things the government is promoting through legislative means? If yes, which "things" are going to be negatively affected and how?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Tacenda]

Religion has only been the primary vessel by which marriage was attained. I have seen little to no evidence of secular marriages that occurred more than 2000 years ago. This, however, does not mean that religion has the final say on the matter. Allowing for gay marriage is giving rights and protecting those rights of individuals who want to marry. Usually this is where certain anti-gay marriage propagandists and bigots throw in slippery slope marriages and affections to attempt to advance their argument albeit ad nauseum. Where these propagandists think they are making a point they are in fact demonstrating their ignorance and intolerance for anything that is outside of the fallacious "norm" or "status quo". It's really quite pretentious and asinine.

Religions want the liberty to practice and believe how they see fit but refuse to back out of political issues based on their ideas of morality. The U.S. government needs to be secularized from the lobbyists and ignoramuses that make up the Tea Party and their like minded ilk.

I don't quite understand the stand against gays marrying. I think it would do what it has done for heterosexuals in keeping one another loyal to one another. The only reason I see that people might be against marriage for lgbt is that they'll adopt children. But single people are already able to adopt. So what is the biggest problem people have with it?

[Lamanite]

From a recent Patheos article.

"Over time, I could not square their stories and experiences with the theology I had inherited. So I re-opened the issue, read a lot of books, re-studied the Scriptures, and eventually came to believe that just as the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which it justified biblically) … we had been wrong on this issue. In this process, I did not reject the Bible. In fact, my love and reverence for the Bible increased when I became more aware of the hermeneutical assumptions on which many now-discredited traditional interpretations were based and defended. I was able to distinguish “what the Bible says” from “what this school of interpretation says the Bible says,” and that helped me in many ways."

I thought this passage was interesting because of the contrasts he makes between homosexuality and issues Christianity once accepted but now rejects.

One could easily argue that SSM could be such an issue in our near future.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 11, 2012 by Lamanite

[RobertAC]

From a recent Patheos article.

I thought this passage was interesting because of the contrasts he makes between homosexuality and issues Christianity once accepted but now rejects.

One could easily argue that SSM could be such an issue in our near future.

Big UP!

Lamanite

A good post by Brian McLaren. His thoughts are good beyond addressing religion, homosexuality, and sin, but apply to many situations where we are confronted with conflicting ideas.

[wenglund]

I understand the operative word may be "encourage", but I can't see how the government's encouragement would contribute to or influence a couple's relationship in terms of commitment, stability, or length of relationship.

Marriage, by its very nature, is a formal commitment that lends itself to stability and longevity. The government also helps marriages along in this regard by enacting laws and policies that provide incentives for procreative couples to stay married and behave responsibly as well as disincentives to divorce.

Governmental sanctions can also have an impact on public sentiment on marriage and married people, giving it and them legitimacy and reputability and added value, while somewhat stigmatizing deadbeats, neglectful parents, and single older adults (particularly those who are divorced), which likewise acts as an incentive for procreative couples to get married, be good parents, and stay married.

Granted, these governmental incentives and disincentives don't always produce perfect results. However, from a cost/benefit standpoint, it has been determined by various legislatures that in terms of procreative relationships, these marital incentives are better than the alternative.

If the government removed itself entirely from marriage do you think the "familial structure" of the family would disintegrate?

It very well could for far more families than currently are disintegrating. As a test case, check out the inner cities in places like Chicago where marriage has been growing increasingly out of favor, where the rate of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers has skyrocketed to alarming levels, with the consequence being greater risks of poverty, school drop-outs, violence and so forth.

Is there any empirical data that supports the idea that SSM or less familial structures would have a negative impact on those things the government is promoting through legislative means? If yes, which "things" are going to be negatively affected and how?

I am sorry my good friend, but your question is actually backwards. It doesn't make sense for governments to go about doing things for no reason but that it has yet to be proven to be problematic. Just the opposite. As has been the case with traditional marital laws and most any legislation, reason demands that those advocating for change need to make a rational cost/benefit case that it is in the people's interest to do so. In other words the onus for requesting that the government incur added costs associated with extending marital incentives to a relatively few gay couples, rests with those who are advocating for SSM. Gay advocates bear the burden of showing that legalizing SSM will have a positive impact and not a negative impact on society in general, and families in particular. Good luck with that. Early results from marital social experiments in places like the Netherlands aren't promising.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't quite understand the stand against gays marrying. I think it would do what it has done for heterosexuals in keeping one another loyal to one another.

I think that part of your lack of understanding opposition to SSM may be owing to your evident lack of understanding how and why laws in general, and marital laws in particular, are enacted. I took great pains to carefully and logically explain earlier in the thread that the primary reasons governments have chosen to incur the sizable costs of regulate marriage all hinges on procreation. In terms of cost/benefit, it is in the people's, and thus the governments, interest to promote formally committed, stable, longterm procreative relationships. In fact, according to the legislatures and courts, our existence and survival is dependent on procreative relationships.

The same is clearly not true for homosexual relationships. Our existence and survival is not dependent in the least on homosexual relationships, and may even be somewhat compromised by homosexual relationships, and so it doesn't make sense, or at least a sensible case has yet to be made (likely because there isn't a sensible case) for the government to incur the sizable cost of promoting homosexual relationships and encouraging their stability and longevity, let alone by legalizing SSM for a relatively few homosexual couples. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

I think that part of your lack of understanding opposition to SSM may be owing to your evident lack of understanding how and why laws in general, and marital laws in particular, are enacted. I took great pains to carefully and logically explain earlier in the thread that the primary reasons governments have chosen to incur the sizable costs of regulate marriage all hinges on procreation. In terms of cost/benefit, it is in the people's, and thus the governments, interest to promote formally committed, stable, longterm procreative relationships. In fact, according to the legislatures and courts, our existence and survival is dependent on procreative relationships.

The same is clearly not true for homosexual relationships. Our existence and survival is not dependent in the least on homosexual relationships, and may even be somewhat compromised by homosexual relationships, and so it doesn't make sense, or at least a sensible case has yet to be made (likely because there isn't a sensible case) for the government to incur the sizable cost of promoting homosexual relationships and encouraging their stability and longevity, let alone by legalizing SSM for a relatively few homosexual couples. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've your right to your opinion. I just see their reasoning to seal the deal. I don't see these marriages making that big of dent among procreating couples. I think the dent has already been made by heterosexual couples limiting the number of children they have already. What if these SSM couples took the parentless children in foster care and gave them a family that they might never have had otherwise? Maybe these children just want to fit in just like the SSM couple. That would create a bond right there.

[Damien the Leper]

Since you seem to be unaware, let me kindly inform you of the obvious fact that this is a public discussion board, and a relatively open forum, and this is a thread in which I am a welcomed, active, if not primary participant. This means that I, as well as you and any other registered participant, can pick and choose which posts in a given thread we wish to respond to whether the posts were expressly addressed to us or not.

And, my reasonable response to your irrelevant comments were informed, warranted, and entirely appropriate, and cannot logically be interpreted as suggesting that your post was in response to what I had said, or that I think this thread is just about my opinions, or that it matters to me what you may think of my follow-up comments.

Let me repeat: your dogmatic assertions are still open to reasoned debate, and they have become increasingly more so with further investigation. I am not sure how my consistent position somehow implies that I want my cake and eat it too. And, were this not tangential to the topic of this thread, I would ask you to explain, but since it is tangential, I will simply close my small part in it by wishing you a good day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps you can actually address my post concerning Blooit's rather than singling out a sole sentence to further your agenda. If you don't want to appropriately respond to my post then perhaps you should not address any of my comments.

[Tacenda]

I think that part of your lack of understanding opposition to SSM may be owing to your evident lack of understanding how and why laws in general, and marital laws in particular, are enacted. I took great pains to carefully and logically explain earlier in the thread that the primary reasons governments have chosen to incur the sizable costs of regulate marriage all hinges on procreation. In terms of cost/benefit, it is in the people's, and thus the governments, interest to promote formally committed, stable, longterm procreative relationships. In fact, according to the legislatures and courts, our existence and survival is dependent on procreative relationships.

The same is clearly not true for homosexual relationships. Our existence and survival is not dependent in the least on homosexual relationships, and may even be somewhat compromised by homosexual relationships, and so it doesn't make sense, or at least a sensible case has yet to be made (likely because there isn't a sensible case) for the government to incur the sizable cost of promoting homosexual relationships and encouraging their stability and longevity, let alone by legalizing SSM for a relatively few homosexual couples. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've your right to your opinion. I just see their reasoning to seal the deal. I don't see these marriages making that big of dent among procreating couples. I think the dent has already been made by heterosexual couples limiting the number of children they have already. What if these SSM couples took the parentless children in foster care and gave them a family that they might never have had otherwise? Maybe these children just want to fit in just like the SSM couple. That would create a bond right there.

[Damien the Leper]

Given that no one has yet to raise this argument on this thread, but have instead carefully set forth a well reasoned legal argument that has oft been upheld by the legislatures and courts and remains yet to be directly challenged by anyone on this thread; and given how irresponsibly you are now tossing around the "bigot" label; it appears that you are the one ironically engaging in propaganda.

It takes no small measure of hubris for you to try and poison the well with a straw man and to also appeal to emotion by illegitimately evoking inflammatory stereotypes, all in a single paragraph. Were you supposing anyone would be fooled?

Again, given the evidence, it appears that you are once again projecting.

Imagine that. Religionists believe they have constitutionally protected liberties as well as the constitutional right to vote according to their conscience. Are we supposed to see this as problematic in any way?

Perhaps you could justify your dogmatic and intolerant wish, though on another thread. For starters, you might explain what the Tea Party has to do with the SSM debate (it isn't mentioned in their 10-point platform), and why they, as a legitimate, non-religious political organizations, should be included in your banal secular purge of religionists from government involvement.

Or is this simply your lame attempt to inflame and insult in order to get a perfectly reasonable thread closed down because you don't like the compelling direction it has taking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For someone who claims to endorse critical thinking you seem to fail miserably concerning your own rhetoric. Time and again you fail consistently provide an argument that is not "Holy Hetero" bent. Your arguments and insults are presumptuous at best because you fail to look beyond your narrow worldview. Because of this your logic fails and your dogmatic assertions burn up faster than kindling.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Valentinus