Prop 8 Myths Busted

[Shanky82]

You're not keeping up. Steinman, approved of government regulated "Preferred Family Units". I said that the American majority iisn't ddumb enough to go along with something like that.

I am keeping up. As fast as I can. I just find the two of you going back and forth quite amusing.

[Shanky82]

I'd like to see the full documentation, audio and video used to produce this stuff. I'm not asking for the impossible. I just wanna make sure there isn't any intentional misrepresentation to satisfy a complicated bias.

And it continues... Sorry. I'm done trolling now.

[Shanky82]

One of the problems that often remains unspoken is the transience of homosexual relationships. (This is another potential avenue of marriage being injured as an institution -- beyond what heterosexuals have already done).

http://www.frc.org/i...m/IS04C02_3.gif

Two very large studies, one in 1978 and the other in 1997 indicate that the relationships are fleeting and frequent -- with the majority of gay men having had between 100 and 500 partners.

In my opinion, this is not a good environment to put children in and is also not the basis of good marriage policy for our country.

But really, there needs to be a new feeling about marriage all around. Marriage needs to be taken far more seriously and our society needs to value it more. We have gotten pretty far away from that and it hurts us as a country. I don't know what we can do to fix it.

I do have to say, though. This is the white elephant in the room.

[Robert F. Smith]

But I thought that a majority of Americans believe ssm okay...

A majority of Americans may believe anything at any given time. They may believe that S&M or SSM is OK, or they may simply be tolerant of other modes of conduct.

What happens, however, when the majority of Americans become just like the majority in ancient Athens, in the time of Socrates & Plato, when that majority (the men at least) believed in and practiced pederasty, the normal practice being for an older man to introduce young boys to that mode of sexuality. Socrates & Plato themselves are believed to have been full participants. Yet, what happens when Socratic dialogue threatens to disclose the weak bases for such traditions? Does the philosopher have to be killed?

[longview]

. . . Like Bush, Obama governs from the center, leaving us satisfied with neither . . .

If you really took the "long view," you'd know that.

I am quite shocked that you would consider Obama to be a centrist. Everybody knows Obama grew up with dedicated communists in his families. His mentors include Bill Ayers and Frank Marshal Davis, all dyed in the wool communists.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think that Prop 8 got rid of the right to be married by a Justice of the Peace. It only removed the ability of the State to Recognize that marriage.

While this may seem merely a trivial difference, I don't think so. Because one is preventing the actions of individuals, while the other is restricting the actions of the State. Not the same in my mind at all.

Having said that, I think that in about 30 years, we will see lawsuits to force LDS and others to marry gays in their Temples or Churches. 30 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anyone outside of a lunatic fringe would take the idea of gay marriage seriously. What you believe is possibly unthinkable today is being prepped today.

Yes your probably correct... And they will lose.

I fully support SSM in the state context... I fully support religions right to define marriage in a religious context.

State decision making around rights to my assets should have nothing to do with my sexual orientation. Allowing SSM is the easiest way to do this.

[Bikeemikey]

No, it is worthwhile.

It is in the interest of society to promote those things that are conducive to the creating and raising of new law abiding citizens and a family structure of a mother and a father together to raise the Children appears to produce the best outcome for those children.

In the interest of promoting (economically and socially) the #1 Best Way to achieve that reasonable objective, other systems would be less promoted and supported.

This has nothing to do with hating gays or stopping them from getting "married". But society should positively recognize and encourage those things that build it up and make it inherently stronger across generations -- not stronger in some abstract way -- but stronger in the concrete way of larger, better trained, stable, population and workforce. This comes from the structure of a Mother and a Father together.

I actually agree that it is in societies best interest to promote certain lifestyles and social choices. The better our societies (moral) choices the better our society.

Society is not the govt, nor is govt the society.

I don't believe it is the govts role to either incentivize or promote all of the things society ought to do. That is also why I think religions are so impt.

If i am unhappy with the moral condition of society I should learn to be a better missionary for my moral beliefs and religious convictions. Society not matching my moral compass should not be reason or justification that allows me to force on society my moral disposition via legislation.

It is possible that our society will be destroyed because of our wickedness. This will not be the govts fault, that will be the fault of religions not effectively being able to persuade people of their message.

I believe the govt should provide equal protection through law. I also believe the govt is not an adjudicator of the moral good, nor should they be.

It is the role of society to worry about the relationship between impending doom and loose moral conduct by the people, not the govt.

If you are worried about people's moral actions concert them, don't use legislative mechanisms to try and back door force people who don't agree with us to live a Mormon life.

[jwhitlock]

This is such a brilliant defense. I am so surprised that the lawyers defending prop 8 didn't point this out to the Supreme Court. Why is Prop 8 even in the courts? How could this proposition get over ruled in both the state and federal courts? i keep scratching my head and can not figure it out. Gays are not denied marriage? What the heck is this court case all about? It is a complete baffle to me. Well I am sure the Supreme Court will agree with this seamless logic and uphold prop 8 on the basis that there has never been any discrimination against gay couples in this country. It is such simple logic, why would they even wait until June to throw this law suite out. If there is no discrimination going on toward gay couples, isn't this a slam dunk? Good point Wade. You go guy. How many Mormons reading your post are shacking their heads yes to this brilliant post.

Given the fact that there are far more gays in marriages to someone of the opposite sex, then there are in SSMs, your point here is irrelevant. Many, many gays make full use of the same rights everyone has - and the fact that they do so within heterosexual marriages proves that fact.

It is fast becoming evident that SSM supports are mostly resorting to demeaning hype, like you do above, in order to divert from a real discussion of the problems of making SSM a special privilege for a narrow special interest group.

[jwhitlock]

Marriage should be a religious ceremony for whatever religion you belong to. I'm fine with having a civil union with my wife until I get sealed. So why is it a big deal to you? Do you hope to force the LDS Church or any church for that matter to marry SSM couples?

Yes, some gays want exactly that to happen.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't know about Republicans -- I am not one. But I am in favor of government using laws to promote some behaviors and to discourage other behaviors. It is, after all, what laws are about.

Some laws are about promoting behavior, and most of these should be done away in the interest of smaller govt.

Laws should be about harm, not moral goods and social engineering toward certain "desired" actions.

Religions and other non-govt institutions should use God (our moral whip) to motivate people toward the moral good.

We are getting lazy and asking for bigger govt if we want govt to perform religions key role and responsibility in society. By asking the govt to be a moral adjudicator beyond the limited scope of harm principles we are establishing a quasi govt-religion to monitor and manage my morality.

If we want limited govt then we need to actually ask the govt to be limited.

[jwhitlock]

It is amazing that some of the greatest legal minds in the United States including the Supreme Court has been bamboozled into thinking that gays don't have the right to marry. Over half of the population of this country thinks they should have the right to marry, yet, they already have the right to marry. What is all the commotion about anyway? Unbelievable don't you think?

I like this as a showcase example of the kinds of misrepresentations SSM supporters make. Gays have the same right to marry as anyone else, and the fact that there are far more gays in mixed gender marriages, then there are in same sex marriages indicates that they recognize this.

The fact is, SSM supporters are demanding a special privilege for their narrow special interests, and not some kind of "right" that they don't already have.

[Bikeemikey]

The units are defined as the best type of Family Structure for raising new Citizens: A Man and Woman raising the Children together, responsibly.

The way you have phrased this sounds like the role of people is to produce new generations of citizens for the govt... I can see some post-apocalyptic landscape where humans must optimize child-rearing in order to meet distopian govt demand. Sounds like a fun sci-fi movie.

I know this is not what you mean.

I think the govt should have limited stake in the quality of individuals within society - it should be limited the relations of individuals to others within the society.

Limited govt. is not only about the budget... It is about govt taking a stake in private moral action beyond the scope of harm to others.

[jwhitlock]

I don't think that Prop 8 got rid of the right to be married by a Justice of the Peace. It only removed the ability of the State to Recognize that marriage.

While this may seem merely a trivial difference, I don't think so. Because one is preventing the actions of individuals, while the other is restricting the actions of the State. Not the same in my mind at all.

Having said that, I think that in about 30 years, we will see lawsuits to force LDS and others to marry gays in their Temples or Churches. 30 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anyone outside of a lunatic fringe would take the idea of gay marriage seriously. What you believe is possibly unthinkable today is being prepped today.

30 years? It will be far, far sooner than that.

[Bikeemikey]

I actually just want them to have a social structure that they favor with benefits. -- Man and Woman committed to responsibly raising Children together.

Mainly because I think this is fundamental to the "very existence and survival" of our society.

New Zealand and most of Northern Europe out perform the US in child education, teen pregnancy rates (lower is better), adolescent violence, and many other metrics on well-being. These nations for right of preferential family treatment incentives through tax codes and welfare a while ago.

While I support the importance of promoting good outcomes for our children and youth I think what you are proposing does not do what you think it does. Either that or there is another reason why these amoral semi-socialist states are kick our US butts up and down the metrics of child and youth performance? Let's ignore the studies and outcomes relating to adult wellbeing and happiness.

[Bikeemikey]

Under the Kingdom of God you will not have your wish.

CFR... Please.

[Bikeemikey]

There are clearly some that disagree with you on that very last part. I am beginning to suspect that even the SCOTUS is going to duck the question because right now I think Justice Kennedy is going to seize the day and the marriage cases are going to go down like this: Prop 8 case will get dismissed as jurisdiction having been improvidently granted because of the standing issue, and the DOMA will be struck down via a plurality decision with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion based on a Federalism argument that it interferes with the reserved exclusive control over marriage by the States this will be accompanied by a concurring opinion by the liberals on the Court who concur with the result but not the opinion. The net result will be California will have gay marriage, and the Feds will be a bit confused, but the IRS and Social Security will probably have to start recognizing gay marriage. Which means that those states with full gay marriage laws will quickly become marriage mills for gays and lesbians which will help the bed and breakfast businesses in Vermont.

I actually have a bed and breakfast in VT !!! Yay !!!

[Bikeemikey]

Irrelevant. Its a matter of providing the right environment for the responsible rearing of children -- with a man (preferably the father) and a woman (preferably the mother) committed to living in the same household and agreeing to take responsibility for the raising of the children.

They don't have to be married. They don't have to be married to each other. They don't have to be married to only one person. It is irrelevant. Remember -- we are not recognizing marriage. Just providing social, legal and economic benefits to Preferred Family Units -- which are fall under the aegis of State Interest as it pertains the raising of future generations of citizens.

That is an interesting idea.

I thought that the govt should have a stake in shaping the quality of family units I think I would support your proposal. Down with govt reference to marriage and up with PFU's.

Though I would be on the fence regarding incentivizing the unit at all, verses unit outcomes.

Tracking unit performance and having different tax status for families whose kids do well in school, never get arrested, etc etc could be even better.

The lingering problem with using family units as the incentive is that it is not outcome bound. You are providing an incentive on the assumption of outcome but the incentive system itself is outcome blind. If you could introduce outcome incentives somewhere it is a stronger incentive model.

Having said that... I still don't the the govt should incentive family outcomes. Society should, just not govt.

[jwhitlock]

Which means that those states with full gay marriage laws will quickly become marriage mills for gays and lesbians which will help the bed and breakfast businesses in Vermont.

Won't happen. States that embraced SSM had a small surge in same sex marriages and that was about it. There are far more gays that opt for mixed gender marriages than same sex marriages; most gays do not appear to be that interested in entering into SSMs at all, as the percentage of gays in SSM remains significantly lower than the married percentage of the general population. Despite SSM being readily available now, that percentage isn't changing much.

[jwhitlock]

The thing is even if you controlled for that kind of stuff, the fact is that many SSM couples make better parents than the others, and that is likely to remain true unless we start sterilizing some of the morons who right now are multiplying like rabbits and methinks we as a people would not welcome having eugenics being reintroduced so you will continue to have teenagers making babies in the backseat and SSM couples going through adoption agencies its just the way it all works, it makes you wonder if we really should have put the Shakers out of the foster care business...lol

The studies are irrelevant because they don't address the real question at hand, which is "What parenting environment serves children best when the parents are doing things right? Male and female, or same sex?"

[Daniel2]

... the fact [is] that there are far more gays in mixed gender marriages, then there are in same sex marriages...

There are far more gays that opt for mixed gender marriages than same sex marriages;

most gays do not appear to be that interested in entering into SSMs at all,

the percentage of gays in SSM remains significantly lower than the married percentage of the general population.

Despite SSM being readily available now, that percentage isn't changing much.

CFR on each point above, please.

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[Bikeemikey]

If only it was possible to have demerit marks as well as rep points... oh well.

[Daniel2]

The studies are irrelevant because they don't address the real question at hand, which is "What parenting environment serves children best when the parents are doing things right? Male and female, or same sex?"

Depends on the parents, as each are individuals with their own unique strengths. When it comes down to specific benefits to actual children (on a family-to-family basis), generalizations about dual-gendered parents vs same-gendered parents are likely as useless as generalizations about dual-religion parents vs same-religion parents.

No two-parents are alike. "Tends" aren't particularly useful in making blanket judgements about what is best for any given child, nor should the dictate public legality of whether or not marriage is a civil right.

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[jwhitlock]

CFR on each point above, please.

Daniel2

As a base for the fact that there are more gays in mixed orientation marriages than SSM, here's a link. They estimate there are about two million mixed orientation marriages in the U.S.

Depending on who is reporting 2010 census statistics (you can Google gay couples / gay married couples), there are between 560,000-645,000 gay couples in the U.S. (married or non-married), of which somewhere between 115,000 and 150,000 identify themselves as married. Estimates of the number of gays in the U.S. range from 4 million to 13 million.

Feel free to spin the numbers any way you want; however, when you look at them it becomes pretty clear that each one of the assertions I've made is factual. Despite gay marriage being readily available, there are not a proportionally significant number of gays that have taken advantage of it. Far more gays take advantage of mixed orientation marriages, for various reasons; interestingly enough, however, despite some high failure rates for those marriages, the number of successful mixed orientation marriages (those who stay together) appear to be far more than those who stay together in SSMs - or even as gay, unmarried couples.

[jwhitlock]

Depends on the parents, as each are individuals with their own unique strengths. When it comes down to specific benefits to actual children (on a family-to-family basis), generalizations about dual-gendered parents vs same-gendered parents are likely as useless as generalizations about dual-religion parents vs same-religion parents. No two-parents are alike, nor are "tends" particularly useful in making blanket judgements about what is best for any given child.

Daniel2

I suspect that gender roles in mixed gender parents have a far more significant - and positive - effect on children than you think.

[Daniel2]

I suspect that gender roles in mixed gender parents have a far more significant - and positive - effect on children than you think.

You're free to believe whatever you want on that topic--and its your civil right to choose to marry someone of the opposite-sex with whom to have raise children in your a dual-gendered household--it's not the government's business to dictate who you civilly marry--even if studies show your choice of spouse brings to your parenting arrangement any type of parental deficit (as all of us, as parents, do, one way or the other).

You're also free to advocate on behalf of you're belief that opposite-sex parenting should be encouraged and supported, and discourage support for same-sex parenting, if you so chose.

What you aren't and shouldn't be free to do, however, is impose your belief on others, their children and families, or vote to remove the civil marriage rights of couples and parents who don't share your views.

Daniel2

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2