Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[Stone holm]

Looking at the relatively recent history of STD's among homosexuals, there have been several approaches that have been tried to correct the problem. There have been expensive publicity and educational campaigns waged to try and decrease homosexual STD's, with limited and only short-term affect. There has also been a move to mimic the approach used to curb heterosexual STD's by encouraging fidelity and formally committed relationships, which, in the case of homosexuals, not only had the opposite affect (as demonstrated above), but may have inadvertently and unwittingly diminished the meaningfulness of marriage for heterosexuals, thus diminishing the effectiveness of the approach used to heterosexual STD's.

There may have been other strategies that have been employed without success, but I can't think of them right now.

This raises the nagging question, then, has there been an approach that has worked long-term in reducing homosexual STD's?

The answer is, yes, and I hinted at it in my previous post. The one thing that has worked well in the past, and for hundreds if not thousands of years, is social shunning and shaming of homosexual behaviors.

Yet, in our collective brilliance and warped sense of compassion as a so-called modern society, we have virtually eliminated that effective and truly loving and humane and protective strategy, and are now suffering the unintended consequences--most of which are visited on the heads of those towards whom people were trying to be compassionate and accepting to begin with. Again,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So we are linking the rise in STD's to SSM because they coincided? Interesting. Has there been an explanation as to why they are linked? I wonder if there has also been a corresponding drop in the percentage of people in a heterosexual marriage? If so, then the linkage may be just to the drop in percentages of people in marriage period, not to the increased percentage of people in a SSM. Are increased rates associated with married couples or with unmarried couples? If it is correct that SSM increases the rate of STDs one might assume that marriage itself increases the STD rate which would suggest that we quit encouraging people to get married....but that seems about as illogical as the argument that stable relationships increase STD rates.

[wenglund]

Any indication why there is such a significant difference between civil unions in Vermont (20%) and marriage in Mass (5%)?

I don't have a clue.. What you astutely query about below may be a factor.

And is there evidence that now gay marriage is legal in Vermont that those who had civil unions are switching over (or does the law do this anyway) to gay marriage or that the rate of either civil union or gay marriage is going up as was predicted when there were those saying that civil union not being identical to marriage would not have the same positive effects that heterosexual marriage has on their participants, is there any evidence of gays moving more aggressively toward marriage now that it is approved for all? or any change in the quality or type of relationship when it changes from a civil union to a marriage?

Good questions...for which I don't have informed answers, though it might be useful to look into them. However, I have found that it is quite difficult to come by statistics in this regard, in part, because there may be some politicking involved because the statistics, or at least those that I have located, tend to run dis-favorably to the now popular agenda.

Sorry if this is off topic, Wade, these questions occurred to me when I did a bit a research on Vermont...you may have answered already, my interest in these threads varies overtime so I may have missed some important info.

No problem. They are great questions the answers to which may shed helpful light on the topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So we are linking the rise in STD's to SSM because they coincided?

No. As a tertiary point, we are look at the link between STD's and SSM because they seem to correlate within the broader context of the social war on marriage and the family.

I had thought to substantively engage the rest of your post, but then I remembered that you are loath to return the favor. But, I will say this, you are on the right track in terms of looking at the over-all drop in marriage, though it might help you to understand that such a over-all drop in marriage rates may be a function of a decline in the value of marriage, due in part to pop culture, at times unwittingly, though in some cases quite intentionally, diluting the value through mangling the legal meaning of marriage. It is, among a number of things, a negative, and for some, unintended consequence of inane liberal compassion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Found this little off topic sort of tidbit:

http://en.wikipedia....iage_in_Vermont

It would be interested to see if this came to pass as predicted, it being three years from Sept 2009 when the law went into effect.

Since the country as a whole has faced hard economic times since 2009, there is a built-in out if the prediction didn't hold true (I seriously doubt that it did, though I can't say for sure without researching the numbers).

However, if I recall correctly, there were some economic studies done in Mass prior to 2009 that allegedly showed economic benefits for legalizing marriage in 2004. I can't speak to the soundness or validity or competency of the studies, but they have been touted propagandistically as a kind of "we share you values" economic benefit and pressure point in other locales--Vermont likely one of them.

I seriously question the sustainability of "we share your values" economic perks, if any, beyond whatever initial effects there may have been with first entries, like Mass., into the market. As more states come on board, I don't know that there is enough "gay values" money around to bolster other economies...certainly not in a down economy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

One might draw some other conclusions than the idea that gay couples seeking marriage constitutes an attack on marriage and that accounts the decay in value placed on marriage. For example in the 80s missionaries sent to Catholic countries in South America were pointing to one of the biggest obstacles to baptism was getting long established couples to marry. It seems that impact of the Catholic Church's staunch stance against divorce and being unfaithful in marriage had resulted in the common people coming to believe that marriage jinxed relationships and so they were foregoing marriage for stability in raising their families.

[wenglund]

One might draw some other conclusions than the idea that gay couples seeking marriage constitutes an attack on marriage and that accounts the decay in value placed on marriage.

People can also think that the earth is flat.

For example in the 80s missionaries sent to Catholic countries in South America were pointing to one of the biggest obstacles to baptism was getting long established couples to marry. It seems that impact of the Catholic Church's staunch stance against divorce and being unfaithful in marriage had resulted in the common people coming to believe that marriage jinxed relationships and so they were foregoing marriage for stability in raising their families.

Yes, such undeveloped thoughts may occur in undeveloped countries.

This should go without saying, but just because people think things, doesn't mean it makes sense. Take for example the whole legalized SSM movement. As I have demonstrated, it doesn't make sense on a number of levels, yet good and decent people, including some faithful members, have been emotively duped and have bought into the pop cultural nonsense, and while thinking they have done something wonderful, they are unwittingly leaving a declining civilization to their children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

People can also think that the earth is flat.

Yes, such undeveloped thoughts may occur in undeveloped countries.

This should go without saying, but just because people think things, doesn't mean it makes sense. Take for example the whole legalized SSM movement. As I have demonstrated, it doesn't make sense on a number of levels, yet good and decent people, including some faithful members, have been emotively duped and have bought into the pop cultural nonsense, and while thinking they have done something wonderful, they are unwittingly leaving a declining civilization to their children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It appears then that most of the continents which Europeans settled are becoming undeveloped countries. But I see one continent that appears to be bucking the undeveloped trend, namely Africa.

[rockpond]

I am curious as to how long you might think it would take for the 'pull' of the larger heterosexual community norms to start having an effect on 'normalizing' homosexual marital/union relationships? Will it take decades or quicker due to a younger group coming up knowing that the possibility of marriage is likely available to them so that becomes their ideal rather than simply adapting the current prevalent lifestyle of the gay communities around them (assuming the standards vary from place to place just as they do among heterosexuals).

And considering the current sense of fluidity that the norms of a heterosexual marriage relationship appear to be in at the moment, will the addition of a group whose practices of marriage differ from the norm contribute to a change of the norms over time pull those norms further into fluidity or will absorbing an outlying group that has been putting pressure in various ways create greater stability for both as they readjust into their new relationship to each other....they no longer would need to be seen as competing or contrasting or even of destructive of each other, but both could function as almost 'identical pillars of society'...both promoting marriage as a longterm, monogamous, faithful environment that promotes not only greater physical and mental health (according to the stats) for the adults involved, but also for the children (with the lower levels of 'parental turnover' and greater stability in their lives).

I figure it will take one or more generations. We would need to create a society in which gay marriage is legal everywhere and have a generation that is raised in that society from birth. I think it would help if our churches would teach about same-gender marriage in the same way we teach about opposite-gender marriage. (Note: I am not suggesting that we infringe on freedom of religion and make churches teach that which they don't believe. I'm just saying what I think would be optimal.)

[rockpond]

This raises the nagging question, then, has there been an approach that has worked long-term in reducing homosexual STD's?

The answer is, yes, and I hinted at it in my previous post. The one thing that has worked well in the past, and for hundreds if not thousands of years, is social shunning and shaming of homosexual behaviors.

Oh yes, that has worked brilliantly.

[rockpond]

I am continually stunned by the seeming ease at which you so blithely pass over otherwise deeply concerning statistics and argumentation and move quickly on to repeat, with near zombie-like devotion, the party line.

But, then, I am reminded that you are not alone. Millions of good and decent people like yourself have allowed themselves to be uncritically indoctrinated for year by the near imperceptibly twisted appeals to emotion from highly skilled propagandist. It is as though you and many others have unwittingly joined the growing throngs of the cult of pop culture.

Be that as it may, and not that it may do any good, but I will try once again to straighten out (pun intended) the twists and to interject reason amidst all the emoting, and this as a lead-in to answering the final question.

First of all, this isn't about love, otherwise we would all be enthusiastically for it. Rather, it is about aberrant, and demonstrably unhealthy sexual behavior and the move to mangle a perfectly useful legal term in order to give the government's seal of approval and promote that aberrant sexual behavior, with the hope of putting it on par with the sacred act of procreation.

This is not about equality. It is asinine to think that aberrant, ungodly, and demonstrably harmful sexual behaviors are equal to the divinely instituted act of procreation, and it is just as asinine to try and make them equal. Metaphorically, two locks rubbing together and two keys poking each other will never equal the functionality of a lock and a key. As hard as you may try to see it otherwise, homosexually will never provide equal benefit to society as heterosexuality. There really isn't an equitable comparison here.

And, this is also not specifically about same-sex attraction, itself. Church leaders have counseled us to treat people with SSA with the same level of love and kindness and concern as we would people with propensities or impulses to behave in ways that are harmful and ungodly.

However, that we are to love and embrace the sinner (so to speak), doesn't mean we are to love and embrace the sin. Again, quite the contrary. Our love for the sinner ought to compel us to shun and shame the harmful sin.

Too oft these days, in our upside-down world, people love and embrace the sin confusedly thinking this is how to love and embrace the sinner. You and they act as if you are doing homosexuals a favor and that it is somehow compassionate to condone and encourage demonstrably unhealthy sexual behaviors. Again, quite the contrary.

You also seem to assume that shame and shunning can't be a good thing. Whereas, sometimes it may be what is best. In a collective sense, at times it is a variation of the fight-or-flight instinct that motivates us to protect ourselves from harm and danger and to work towards safety and growth. Some portions of society, and you throughout this thread, have evidently grown so averse to pain and discomfort that you dysfunctionally seek to dull our sense (and consciences) with pop cultural "pain-killers" rather than listen to what our collective bodies are telling us, and take action against the offending cause of the pain and discomfort.

There is good reason that societies and religions have, as with adultery and promiscuity and other social taboos, shunned and shamed homosexual behavior. It is deleterious the welfare and progress of society, and it runs contrary to the order of nature and social evolution, as well as it being an affront to the will of God. And, if you would open your eyes, and turn your ears from man to God, and un-dull you senses, you might just see and hear, particularly when I point them out to you, all the negative unintended consequences of sheepishly catering to pop culture in this regard. I won't hold my breath.

With this in mind, I will answer the final question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sorry I'm not impressed with your excerpts from sources like the Family Research Council, Jack Morin, the Examiner, 35 year old data, and uneducated metaphors about locks & keys.

I have never condoned or encouraged unhealthy sexual behavior so kindly watch your baseless accusations.

For you to say that homosexuality is "deleterious the welfare and progress of society, and it runs contrary to the order of nature and social evolution" speaks to your own indoctrination by conservative pop culture and religious tradition. As for God, he has not spoken directly to us regarding committed homosexual relationships, all we have is an evolving doctrine and prayers for further light.

You are correct, however, in your assertion that I do not see the benefit shame and shunning. I see nothing Christlike in the ideas you've put forward in this thread.

And I do, absolutely, think this is about love. I have no interest, zero, in turning sons and daughters of God into statistics on a page and into the bottom line of a cost/benefit analysis. I think that my job here on earth is to give them all the love and respect I can. I think that my job as a citizen of this nation is to work toward granting them full equality. Then, I'll let them work out their own salvation.

[rockpond]

Take for example the whole legalized SSM movement. As I have demonstrated, it doesn't make sense on a number of levels...

Your sets of irrationally correlating data from a small subset of the population over a short period of time has not demonstrated that SSM doesn't "make sense".

[Stone holm]

Oh yes, that has worked brilliantly.

Well he does have a point. Publicly shaming and shunning people is an effective deterrent and was used for centuries to keep women and homosexuals in line and to prevent premarital sex. The only problem with this conservative approach which belies the saying hate the sin and not the sinner is that it isn't really considered the Christian thing to do. I remember back when a girl got pregnant in High School she had to drop out of school, and if the boy stepped up and acknowledged the baby and married her he was disqualified from all extracurriculars. I also remember when girls had no varsity sports, etc. But it was an effective deterrent, you have to give him that. I expect the radically conservative Muslim approach of honor killing of daughters and sisters probably is an effective deterrent as well.

[wenglund]

There are still some posts that I plan to respond to and still more I plan to say about procreation, but I think it is time to open discussion, for all the good it will do, about the government's interest in child-rearing as it pertains to marriage.

Do you agree that, as a general rule, rational governments, including the U.S., have an interest in the cultivation of their most valued resource--i.e. children.

Do you agree that, by and large, the interest of governments isn't in raising the children, themselves, but in having the children properly raised by those having the children, and having the children raised in a way that is best for the children and which will burden the governments (the people) the least. In other words, governments have an interested in promoting the ideal familial structure and not in PROMOTING familial structures that may, in some ways, work at cross purposes to the governments' interests, though the government may yet have an interest in providing some ASSISTANCE to alternative familial structures. Governments have an interest in PROMOTING, through marriage, stable and loving and healthy families, each with a biologically related father and mother, while yet also providing, through family and child protection laws, ASSISTANCE where necessary to children in non-ideal families.

Please note the important distinction between ideal and non-ideal, and the distinction between PROMOTE (through marriage) and ASSIST (through other laws).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

There are still some posts that I plan to respond to and still more I plan to say about procreation, but I think it is time to open discussion, for all the good it will do, about the government's interest in child-rearing as it pertains to marriage.

Do you agree that, as a general rule, rational governments, including the U.S., have an interest in the cultivation of their most valued resource--i.e. children.

Do you agree that, by and large, the interest of governments isn't in raising the children, themselves, but in having the children properly raised by those having the children, and having the children raised in a way that is best for the children and which will burden the governments (the people) the least. In other words, governments have an interested in promoting the ideal familial structure and not in PROMOTING familial structures that may, in some ways, work at cross purposes to the governments' interests, though the government may yet have an interest in providing some ASSISTANCE to alternative familial structures. Governments have an interest in PROMOTING, through marriage, stable and loving and healthy families, each with a biologically related father and mother, while yet also providing, through family and child protection laws, ASSISTANCE where necessary to children in non-ideal families.

Please note the important distinction between ideal and non-ideal, and the distinction between PROMOTE (through marriage) and ASSIST (through other laws).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes and no. I believe the government has an interest in providing for the stable, safe and healthy rearing of children. I do not believe the government has any interest in the production of children, nor do I believe that the government necessarily has an interest in whether the children are reared by the biological parents of the children, in fact there is ample evidence that the government interest may well be in not having the children raised by the biological parents. Whether having children raised by stable healthy biological families is always the ideal, I think is not yet proven and actually may not be true. However, we recognize that the right to raise your own biological children is a very important part of individual liberty -- protecting individual liberty does not always produce the ideal result as there are differing factors at play. The question we are grappling with here is whether the right to marry is an important individual liberty and whether the government interfering with the right to marry whomever you chose can be overcome by the importance of other governmental interests. In this legal struggle, the tide of opinion seems to be suggesting that possibly it can, but not simply because of gender discrimination.

[Stone holm]

Yes and no. I believe the government has an interest in providing for the stable, safe and healthy rearing of children. I do not believe the government has any interest in the production of children, nor do I believe that the government necessarily has an interest in whether the children are reared by the biological parents of the children, in fact there is ample evidence that the government interest may well be in not having the children raised by the biological parents. Whether having children raised by stable healthy biological families is always the ideal, I think is not yet proven and actually may not be true. However, we recognize that the right to raise your own biological children is a very important part of individual liberty -- protecting individual liberty does not always produce the ideal result as there are differing factors at play. The question we are grappling with here is whether the right to marry is an important individual liberty and whether the government interfering with the right to marry whomever you chose can be overcome by the importance of other governmental interests. In this legal struggle, the tide of opinion seems to be suggesting that possibly it can, but not simply because of gender discrimination.

I would add that not all Christians have always believed that children should be raised by their biological parents. We sing hymns praising the Pilgrims who believed that it was unwise to have the biological parents raise their own children as they would have a tendency to take too much pride in them and would tend to spoil them, so they farmed them out to others to raise.

[wenglund]

Well he does have a point. Publicly shaming and shunning people is an effective deterrent and was used for centuries to keep women and homosexuals in line and to prevent premarital sex. The only problem with this conservative approach which belies the saying hate the sin and not the sinner is that it isn't really considered the Christian thing to do. I remember back when a girl got pregnant in High School she had to drop out of school, and if the boy stepped up and acknowledged the baby and married her he was disqualified from all extracurriculars. I also remember when girls had no varsity sports, etc. But it was an effective deterrent, you have to give him that. I expect the radically conservative Muslim approach of honor killing of daughters and sisters probably is an effective deterrent as well.

It is expected that fundamentalist thinkers, like yourself, would view this matter in black/white extremes--as you have above.

Fortunately, more developed minds can grasp nuances and see preferential and functional alternatives in-between. They have the capacity, regarding people making harmful choices, to not only consider the feelings in response to negative public reaction to people making harmful choices, but also the negative consequences to all parties of those harmful choices. In short, they are able to balance the relatively moderate discomfort that may come from cultural stigmas, against the potentially significant, and at times seriously debilitating and fatal consequences of things STD's, and rationally recognize that the discomfort of social stigmas may be worth preventing the potentially debilitating and fatal consequences.

I have in mind a fellow that I became acquainted with during my first year at college. He had committed a single sexual indiscretion, and through that indiscretion he had contracted a venereal disease that eventually left his body seriously disfigured. Had he responded properly to the discomforting social stigma at the time, he could have avoided years and years of suffering.

I also have in mind the "anti-smoking" campaigns intended to strike fear in hearts and stigmatize smokers, and the "No Smoking" laws that shun smokers from inside workplaces and business, causing them to suffer the public humiliation of huddling outside. We, as a society, don't rationally seem to have a problem with this kind of social stigmatizing because we are aware of the potential substantial consequence to smokers, themselves, as well as to others through second-hand smoke, of smoking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Fortunately, more developed minds can grasp nuances and see preferential and functional alternatives in-between.

Wade have you not looked around and realized that insulting people is not winning you any support. There are two people left willing to interact with you on this ridiculous groundless thread you have created. You are so warped on this issue of gay marriage that even when people point out gaping holes in your "logic" you dismiss them with insults. Do you think that insulting people is going to somehow cause them to embrace your flawed arguments? It's pathetic.

I have in mind a fellow that I became acquainted with during my first year at college. He had committed a single sexual indiscretion, and through that indiscretion he had contracted a venereal disease that eventually left his body seriously disfigured. Had he responded properly to the discomforting social stigma at the time, he could have avoided years and years of suffering.

Have you ever thought that this shaming that you so want to reintroduce to society is probably the thing that eventually left this body seriously disfigured since venereal disease is relatively easy to cure. Generally, it is when a person is so shamed that they do not go to a doctor immediately that the complications occurs.

In addition and probably more importantly, you will get not support from the scriptural accounts of how Christ wants us to treat others. You will also get on support from modern day prophets who have repeatedly counseled just the opposite of what you are advocating not that any "developed mind" would take your suggestion seriously.

[wenglund]

It is not uncommon for people holding tenuous positions to slip deeper into denial by focusing on exceptions (like Pilgrims), at the expense of the rule (like the vast majority of the human population who are the product of social evolution). With such, it is near impossible to have an intelligent discussion because, seemingly, the need to hold dogmatically to even demonstrably irrational positions, and avoid cognitive dissonance, is so pronounced that critical and compelling reasoning is rendered mostly impotent, oft reducing on-line interactions to polemic sloganeering and party-line monologues. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade have you not looked around and realized that insulting people is not winning you any support. There are two people left willing to interact with you on this ridiculous groundless thread you have created.

Not that it will do any good to say this to you (since you have obviously closed your mind to anything that doesn't comport with your self-serving and demonstrably irrational and ungodly position), but: 1) accurate descriptions are not insults, particularly when in response to seemingly intentional caricatures; and 2) there hasn't been a single opponent on this thread who has been willing to intelligently and open-mindedly engage what I have said. Instead, they, like you, have resorted to unwarranted dismissals and closed there eyes to and made false claims about lack of substantiation, and have but repeatedly regurgitated their cemented position. So, as indicated in the post above, there are no opponents for me to meaningful interact with here, and thus no vocal opponent to win. There is no amount of reason and evidence that I could bring to bear that will have the least impact on their pop-culture-indoctrinated, cemented, irrational and upside-down position. This has been clearly born out time and again on this thread, not the least of which by you.

And, while I did initially hold out some hope of changing minds of some people I figured would become involved in this thread, that wasn't my primary intent in creating this thread. Rather, I have undertaken this arduous task because there may be some open-minded and reasonable readers looking in for whom I may have been or may be of some help, and it also gives me a chance to flesh out my own thoughts, and consider possible objections and differing positions, for the purpose of making a more coherent case down the road, or perhaps even changing my mind if a more reasonable position is presented.

You are so warped on this issue of gay marriage that even when people point out gaping holes in your "logic" you dismiss them with insults. Do you think that insulting people is going to somehow cause them to embrace your flawed arguments? It's pathetic.

I get that this is the way the world increasingly views things--up is now down, and illogic is now logic.

Have you ever thought that this shaming that you so want to reintroduce to society is probably the thing that eventually left this body seriously disfigured since venereal disease is relatively easy to cure. Generally, it is when a person is so shamed that they do not go to a doctor immediately that the complications occurs.

Yes, I have actually considered that angle. It is the same angle plied by gay activist through-out the AID's epidemic. It is just that, with the AID's epidemic, even though society accepted the premise, and went to great lengths to diminish the stigma of homosexuality and AID's, and took extra-ordinary care in protecting the privacy of AID's patients (in some ways that were unusual to epidemics, and somewhat to the dis benefit of other homosexuals and society), so as to minimize the risk of people not getting tested and treated early on, the result has seen a startling increase, rather than decrease, in AID's and AID's-related health problems (as previously documented).

In fact, it was through carefully and thoughtfully considering the AID's epidemic that opened my eyes and helped me to finally see that certain seemingly well-intentioned, though myopic social and governmental actions, may inadvertently exacerbate the very problems they were intended to solve. Certain seemingly charitable policies unwittingly produced very uncharitable results.

Having learned this, then love and compassion has compelled me to warn my neighbor--which is what I am doing here, though some of my neighbors are loath to hear and see it.

In addition and probably more importantly, you will get not support from the scriptural accounts of how Christ wants us to treat others. You will also get on support from modern day prophets who have repeatedly counseled just the opposite of what you are advocating not that any "developed mind" would take your suggestion seriously.

While you couldn't be more mistaken, and while this is certainly a religious issue and one that is fundamentally relevant to my family-based religious faith (and thus fitting for this board), I prefer to examine the issue more in secular rather than religious terms since that is potentially what may have the broader appeal and impact on our pluralistic and increasingly non-religious society. Besides, as you have amply demonstrated, the scriptures, and even to some extent the words of modern prophets, aren't immune to being radically twisted in their interpretations so as to artificially prop up otherwise obviously ungodly positions. So, what is the point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 7, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

It is not uncommon for people holding tenuous positions to slip deeper into denial by focusing on exceptions (like Pilgrims), at the expense of the rule (like the vast majority of the human population who are the product of social evolution). With such, it is near impossible to have an intelligent discussion because, seemingly, the need to hold dogmatically to even demonstrably irrational positions, and avoid cognitive dissonance, is so pronounced that critical and compelling reasoning is rendered mostly impotent, oft reducing on-line interactions to polemic sloganeering and party-line monologues. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay, I get it , this whole thread is a hoax. Nobody can be this out of touch. You are doing this to establish the arrogance and fallacious ness of the anti-SSM marriage dialogue. I was going to respond with a sarcastic comment about our need to encourage bullying of effeminate boys in public schools, when I realised this has to be a set up since nobody except some people in the Deep South woul make these arguments.

[wenglund]

Okay, I get it , this whole thread is a hoax. Nobody can be this out of touch. You are doing this to establish the arrogance and fallacious ness of the anti-SSM marriage dialogue. I was going to respond with a sarcastic comment about our need to encourage bullying of effeminate boys in public schools, when I realised this has to be a set up since nobody except some people in the Deep South woul make these arguments.

I appreciate you unwitting underscoring my point and giving us a peek into your upside-down world--which, to some of us, ought to be preceded by the theme song to "Twilight Zone." Again, up is now down, and logic is "fallaceousness," and critical thinking is a "hoax," and pragmatic social stigmatizing is "bullying."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 8, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

... I prefer to concentrate the discussion more on vetting the reasons why governments in general, and the U.S. in particular, have been and continue to be involved in marriages.

Court cases and legislature. The citizens being governed have issues and those who govern those citizens have decided they should try to resolve those issues. Why have they decided to govern, though, you may ask? Pride, I think, with maybe a tinge of desire to be in some good service to their fellow men and women.

Also, my intent here is to look at governmental involvement not just in terms of regulatory restrictions, but also in terms of government incentives.

Incentives are what those in government offer when they want to promote an activity amont those they govern, and restrictions are used to try curtail an activity.

will be approaching this question with the proposition in mind that governments, including the U.S. government, have become involved in marriage because, in terms of costs/benefits, it has been in the people's (or state's) interest to do so, particularly in relation to bearing and raising children, and this net positive interest applies to heterosexual and not homosexual relationships, and may even work against government regulation and promotion of homosexual relationships.

And yet those in government will still allow what they want to allow and restrict what they want to restrict, regarless of whether or not those they allow to be married bear and raise any children. Just because they'll want to allow whatever they want to allow.

[Stone holm]

Court cases and legislature. The citizens being governed have issues and those who govern those citizens have decided they should try to resolve those issues. Why have they decided to govern, though, you may ask? Pride, I think, with maybe a tinge of desire to be in some good service to their fellow men and women.

Incentives are what those in government offer when they want to promote an activity amont those they govern, and restrictions are used to try curtail an activity.

And yet those in government will still allow what they want to allow and restrict what they want to restrict, regarless of whether or not those they allow to be married bear and raise any children. Just because they'll want to allow whatever they want to allow.

The problem with his reasoning, is in part, he chooses what he thinks the government is trying to incentivise and then looks for examples to justify his choice. His choice is dictated by trying to come up with something that gays cannot do, so it usually falls back on the idea the government wants population growth. If you go by the idea that the government in a democracy should kind of want what the people want then things get a bit dicey since it is basically not at all evident that the people want more people. Course that never really deters a true ideologue whether a liberal or conservative from his intended goal.

[rockpond]

Well he does have a point. Publicly shaming and shunning people is an effective deterrent and was used for centuries to keep women and homosexuals in line and to prevent premarital sex. The only problem with this conservative approach which belies the saying hate the sin and not the sinner is that it isn't really considered the Christian thing to do. I remember back when a girl got pregnant in High School she had to drop out of school, and if the boy stepped up and acknowledged the baby and married her he was disqualified from all extracurriculars. I also remember when girls had no varsity sports, etc. But it was an effective deterrent, you have to give him that. I expect the radically conservative Muslim approach of honor killing of daughters and sisters probably is an effective deterrent as well.

Has shame and shunning worked with the gay community? We've been doing it for a long, long time.

[Ahab]

Has shame and shunning worked with the gay community? We've been doing it for a long, long time.

Yeah, it has worked in the past, and it still works with some people these days. Haven't you heard news stories about teens who commit suicide rather than admit they have "gay" feelings? Coming out of the closet is still seen as a big deal and it's hoped that as more people fess up to their feelings more people will feel okay with it so there will be less suicides. Acceptance is a big part of the deal, apparently, for some people. Which is kinda weird for Americans, since most of us are free spirits who really couldn't care less about peer pressure, or at least when past the teen years.