Pendulum

[jaxenro]

We all know the further a pendulum swings to one side the further it swings to the other. We often see this in social issues as one age gives way to another with often the opposite moral code. Puritan England to Restoration, Regency to Victorian, the mom at home 1950's America to the free love 1960's.

Do you foresee this happening again and do you foresee a backlash or rapid pendulum swing away from the social changes we have seen like SSM and the number of children born out of wedlock, or do you think these are permanent changes?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I believe there is no going back from the course we are now on. Immorality will only continue to grow as society deems it acceptable and normal, "as in the days of Noah...".

Edited March 17, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[california boy]

We all know the further a pendulum swings to one side the further it swings to the other. We often see this in social issues as one age gives way to another with often the opposite moral code. Puritan England to Restoration, Regency to Victorian, the mom at home 1950's America to the free love 1960's.

Do you foresee this happening again and do you foresee a backlash or rapid pendulum swing away from the social changes we have seen like SSM and the number of children born out of wedlock, or do you think these are permanent changes?

 

While there seems to be  a pendulum on some social issues, there has never been a pendulum when it comes to civil rights.  When slavery was abolished, the pendulum did not swing back into slavery again.  When women were given the right to vote, the pendulum did not swing back taking that right away from them.  When inter racial couples were allowed to marry the pendulum did not swing back to take that civil right away from them.  And when gays are also allowed to marry, the pendulum is not going to swing back and take that right away from them.

 

America has a history of correcting social injustice.  It may take a while, but eventually this country gets it right.  To equate gay marriage with a loss of morality has simply NO basis.  It is not a moral issue, it is a civil rights issue.  Unless you can make the case that gay couples are more moral by living together and not marrying then they are living together as a married couple.  You are going to have to explain how by marrying, they become more immoral.

 

Children born out of wedlock is a real moral issue.  Gay marriage is not.  I personally think that when religion tells gays that it is not important for them to formalize their relationships by entering into marriage, religion is also telling couples that marriage is just not that important.  We have heard over and over again that marriage is a religious ceremony and belongs to the church.  If you are not religious, then why participate in a religious ceremony?  With more and more people turning away from organized religion, are you surprised that young couples are also choosing to not have a religious ceremony?  Religion is a part of what is causing the increase of children born out of wedlock.

[jaxenro]

"Religion is a part of what is causing the increase of children born out of wedlock."

 

That is a rather odd view. So when we had more people members of organized religions there were less children born out of wedlock and now that there are less we have more, therefore religion is at fault?

 

Although I doubt that males marrying or not marrying will have a direct impact on that rate as very few, if any, males give birth.

 

Is same sex marriage a civil rights issue? I know supporters wish to cast it as such but to many others it isn't but is instead an aberration. The comparison to slavery is hyperbole. And yes there have been countries that saw great increases on womens rights only to roll them back later. So no, nothing is impossible, even in this country. Civil unrest brought on by drought, famine, nuclear disaster, or a host of other causes could seriously undermine this fragile thing we call democracy. Just because it "has always been" doesn't mean it wll be so tomorrow.

[jaxenro]

I would also add that the percentage of out of wedlock births began to rise dramatically when we began subsidizing it

[Freedom]

I see pendulum shifts in terms of political and economic stability. many supposed the end was coming with the most recent economic crash which has gone on for far longer than any of us liked, but now the U.S. economy is recovering and we may be in for another growth period. Perhaps this growth with be followed by an even more significant downturn. No society lasts forever. Countries, empires, and cultures come and go. 

[thesometimesaint]

The arc of the moral universe is long. But it bends toward justice.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Edited March 17, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mtomm]

Perhaps we see swings in the pendulum because youth often like to do things differently than their parents.  Since the trend right now seems to be to live together before marriage it may well be that children born to those parents will choose to marry.  The trend of having children out-of-wedlock may also run its course and we'll see that also diminish.  Then with the next generation they'll say that their grandparents were much more hip and cool than their own parents and the cycle starts over again.

[jaxenro]

I also think there is a reaction becuase of the natural human tendancy to take things too far. The persecuted become the persecutors and seem to forget what it was they went through not too long ago.

 

The SSM group had no chance 20 years ago, today they have the upper hand. Will they in 20 years? I know they like to claim demographics are helping them but across the world the areas that are seeing huge population growths, Latin America, the Middle East, etc. are not buying into the liberal Western views regarding these issues, if anything they are hardening as we saw recently in Russia

[mtomm]

I also think there is a reaction becuase of the natural human tendancy to take things too far. The persecuted become the persecutors and seem to forget what it was they went through not too long ago.

 

The SSM group had no chance 20 years ago, today they have the upper hand. Will they in 20 years? I know they like to claim demographics are helping them but across the world the areas that are seeing huge population growths, Latin America, the Middle East, etc. are not buying into the liberal Western views regarding these issues, if anything they are hardening as we saw recently in Russia

Yes, I want the U.S.  to become more like Russia and the Middle East and many Latin American countries.  More like Russia!

 

/sarcasm 

[jaxenro]

I don't I am simply stating facts that the rising demographic tide is in areas of the world that are more repressive socially. I think Islam is the fastest growing religion numerically do you think they will be embracing SSM anytime soon?

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/

Edited March 17, 2014 by jaxenro

[Gray]

We are awakening to greater and deeper morality. It's been on a fairly consistent upward slope. I don't see the pendulum thing myself.

[The Nehor]

While there seems to be  a pendulum on some social issues, there has never been a pendulum when it comes to civil rights.  When slavery was abolished, the pendulum did not swing back into slavery again.  When women were given the right to vote, the pendulum did not swing back taking that right away from them.  When inter racial couples were allowed to marry the pendulum did not swing back to take that civil right away from them.  And when gays are also allowed to marry, the pendulum is not going to swing back and take that right away from them.

 

America has a history of correcting social injustice.  It may take a while, but eventually this country gets it right.  To equate gay marriage with a loss of morality has simply NO basis.  It is not a moral issue, it is a civil rights issue.  Unless you can make the case that gay couples are more moral by living together and not marrying then they are living together as a married couple.  You are going to have to explain how by marrying, they become more immoral.

 

Children born out of wedlock is a real moral issue.  Gay marriage is not.  I personally think that when religion tells gays that it is not important for them to formalize their relationships by entering into marriage, religion is also telling couples that marriage is just not that important.  We have heard over and over again that marriage is a religious ceremony and belongs to the church.  If you are not religious, then why participate in a religious ceremony?  With more and more people turning away from organized religion, are you surprised that young couples are also choosing to not have a religious ceremony?  Religion is a part of what is causing the increase of children born out of wedlock.

This is taking a very small sample size and trying to apply it generally. Tolerant nations have slipped into fascism before and are doing so even now. There is no automatic trend. The United States has done so well because we have no faced any real threats to our national integrity from within or without. We have been lucky. There is no guarantee that this will continue.

[katherine the great]

We all know the further a pendulum swings to one side the further it swings to the other. We often see this in social issues as one age gives way to another with often the opposite moral code. Puritan England to Restoration, Regency to Victorian, the mom at home 1950's America to the free love 1960's.

Do you foresee this happening again and do you foresee a backlash or rapid pendulum swing away from the social changes we have seen like SSM and the number of children born out of wedlock, or do you think these are permanent changes?

What kind of a timeframe are you pondering?  There is no such thing as a permanent change.  If you think about all of the changes you listed, they were all greatly influenced or even instigated by an act of war--the protestant revolution, the American revolution, British imperialism, WWII, the Vietnam war.  Governments are established, equilibrium happens, war happens (sometimes through formal military action and sometimes through citizen protest--sometimes both), and great changes happen.  Once people are used to a particular freedom though, they are not likely to relinquish it without a fight.

[The Nehor]

Once people are used to a particular freedom though, they are not likely to relinquish it without a fight.

 

Unless they are scared. See the oddly-named Patriot Act.

[Calm]

When slavery was abolished, the pendulum did not swing back into slavery again.  When women were given the right to vote, the pendulum did not swing back taking that right away from them. 

 

Some might argue that what happened to blacks after slavery was worse in some parts of the country.  And in Utah the vote was taken away from women.

[jaxenro]

"Once people are used to a particular freedom though, they are not likely to relinquish it without a fight."

 

Do you really think many would turn out to fight for SSM? In many states it lost at the ballot box. In others it seems more a committed minority and general apathy allowed it to pass. Most people, especially younger oes, simply don't care.

[katherine the great]

"Once people are used to a particular freedom though, they are not likely to relinquish it without a fight."

 

Do you really think many would turn out to fight for SSM? In many states it lost at the ballot box. In others it seems more a committed minority and general apathy allowed it to pass. Most people, especially younger oes, simply don't care.

I'm not sure where you live but in my neck of the woods people absolutely fight for SSM!  (Of course I work on a college campus so I see the political passion of the 20 something, educated crowd more than other demographics.)

[katherine the great]

Unless they are scared. See the oddly-named Patriot Act.

Well, yes.  Some strange things are done in the name of national security.  (Japanese interment camps come to mind too...)

[BCSpace]

Do you foresee this happening again and do you foresee a backlash or rapid pendulum swing away from the social changes we have seen like SSM and the number of children born out of wedlock, or do you think these are permanent changes?

 

I think the greater the swinging distance, the greater the likelihood violence and war will accompany it.

[jaxenro]

I'm not sure where you live but in my neck of the woods people absolutely fight for SSM! (Of course I work on a college campus so I see the political passion of the 20 something, educated crowd more than other demographics.)

West Virginia - mostly deer hunters in my area

How many of your 20 something's are armed?

[mormonnewb]

Some might argue that what happened to blacks after slavery was worse in some parts of the country.  And in Utah the vote was taken away from women.

I'm not sure that I've heard the argument that blacks were better off anywhere after slavery. Just out of curiosity, does it go?

[jaxenro]

In some areas of the South the share cropping system was worse for blacks then slavery was in other areas of the South. But then again slavery was different on a sugar plantation in the field than say a house slave in Maryland. In some areas after slavery blacks ended up doing life sentences for vagriency chained together and working in fields. Or being stuck to the land via sharecropping and black code laws

Individual circumstances varied. Mans ability to enslave, exploit, harm, and destroy his fellow man knows no bounds and is often helped by laws as well as hindered

[jaxenro]

The Weimar republic of Germany was socially liberal yet was replaced by one that burned gays. That was only 80 years ago

Iran the the Shah had made great strides in liberalizing the treatment of women yet the Iranian revolution threw most of that out. That was only 36 years ago

I can as easily see gays being outlawed 50 years from now as Mormons. It could swing either way

[Storm Rider]

While there seems to be  a pendulum on some social issues, there has never been a pendulum when it comes to civil rights.  When slavery was abolished, the pendulum did not swing back into slavery again.  When women were given the right to vote, the pendulum did not swing back taking that right away from them.  When inter racial couples were allowed to marry the pendulum did not swing back to take that civil right away from them.  And when gays are also allowed to marry, the pendulum is not going to swing back and take that right away from them.

 

America has a history of correcting social injustice.  It may take a while, but eventually this country gets it right.  To equate gay marriage with a loss of morality has simply NO basis.  It is not a moral issue, it is a civil rights issue.  Unless you can make the case that gay couples are more moral by living together and not marrying then they are living together as a married couple.  You are going to have to explain how by marrying, they become more immoral.

 

Children born out of wedlock is a real moral issue.  Gay marriage is not.  I personally think that when religion tells gays that it is not important for them to formalize their relationships by entering into marriage, religion is also telling couples that marriage is just not that important.  We have heard over and over again that marriage is a religious ceremony and belongs to the church.  If you are not religious, then why participate in a religious ceremony?  With more and more people turning away from organized religion, are you surprised that young couples are also choosing to not have a religious ceremony?  Religion is a part of what is causing the increase of children born out of wedlock.

 

This is an argument that has not end. What is social injustice?  Whatever anyone says is social injustice. Yesterday's perversion is today's wholesome, social justice denied.  There is a wide, as in insurmountable difference between slavery, the woman's vote, and the demand for acceptance of the gay lifestyle that is paraded in the guise of SSM.  At no point in this entire social discussion that is going on has the conversation been allowed to actually discuss the gay lifestyle.  The only thing that approach's the discussion is that poor, hopeless Tom (the one that is adorable, witty, and good-looking) is desperate because he is denied because he cannot marry the man of his dreams. 

 

The conversation that was on the front of so many magazines during the age of AIDS discovery and blame has been stymied completely. The discussion of the dangers of the lifestyle does not exist; why do you think that is?  Can you say mass media controlled message?  

 

It would be a more honest, more fair discussion if there was actually an open discussion. What we have today is the commitment to dress up that sow's ear in pink and call it Gucci.  Those committed to the gay lifestyle need to talk openly about their own social issues rather than keep it behind closed doors and society needs to understand exactly what is really going on.  The real issue is not gay marriage; what is desired is complete approval of the gay lifestyle.