Pendulum

[katherine the great]

SSM was always taboo too. What is the legal principle to deny it? Or situations like Woody Allen marrying his girlfriends adopted daughter?

Not necessarily true.  There have been cultures where a biological male has been allowed to perform the functions of a female as a wife.  The "wife" male was usually considered a third gender.  It isn't exactly the same as gay marriage, but similar.  Woody Allen's situation was offensive on numerous grounds.  I don't see how it has anything to do with gay marriage.

[katherine the great]

Are they? We will see in a few hundred years how it has played out

Maybe you'll live to be as old as Noah and will be able to observe it first hand.  

[DJBrown]

Incest is a cross cultural taboo.  The Westermarck Effect.

 

So you are suggesting biological and cultural reasons for prohibiting certain types of marriage?

 

How is this different than same-sex marriage?

[jaxenro]

Not necessarily true. There have been cultures where a biological male has been allowed to perform the functions of a female as a wife. The "wife" male was usually considered a third gender. It isn't exactly the same as gay marriage, but similar. Woody Allen's situation was offensive on numerous grounds. I don't see how it has anything to do with gay marriage.

Once you begin defining marriage to mean whatever you decide it means there is not a legal justification to stop other changes. Many incest laws are based not on living proximity but blood relations due to the needs of reproduction. When you allow two men to marry you toss those out the legal window. Some are biblical based so you can toss those as well. So what are we to base marriage laws on? Why not simply any two consenting adults regardless of any other factors? Why not three, or four, or five? Where is your legal standard for determining what constitutes a marriage? Add to that the continuing social acceptance of unwed patents and you will see many more situations like Woody Allen's. But you have already determined, by advocating for SSM, that marriage itself is divorced from procreation do why not expect more of the same?

[jaxenro]

Maybe you'll live to be as old as Noah and will be able to observe it first hand.

I am sure we will both see it, and the eternal effects from the different causes we advocate. Just not on this side of thd grave.

[katherine the great]

Once you begin defining marriage to mean whatever you decide it means there is not a legal justification to stop other changes. Many incest laws are based not on living proximity but blood relations due to the needs of reproduction. When you allow two men to marry you toss those out the legal window. Some are biblical based so you can toss those as well. So what are we to base marriage laws on? Why not simply any two consenting adults regardless of any other factors? Why not three, or four, or five? Where is your legal standard for determining what constitutes a marriage? Add to that the continuing social acceptance of unwed patents and you will see many more situations like Woody Allen's. But you have already determined, by advocating for SSM, that marriage itself is divorced from procreation do why not expect more of the same?

I agree with part of what you say. Things are changing.  When DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, I remember being struck by something I read in the ruling.  I can't remember the exact terminology, but it was something along these lines.  Law is not concerned with "holy matrimony."  Marriage is a civil status and our society no longer enforces traditional gender roles in the establishment of the marital state.  Men are not likely to be the sole breadwinner and women are not likely to be full time stay at home wives and mothers.  Once these constraints are removed, there is not reason to not extend the state of "marriage" to gay couples.  With no evidence that gay marriage is harmful to children or society, I think it makes sense.  Incest is a completely separate argument.  Incest IS an unnatural state--even removing the reproductive element.  There is loads of evidence to support that.  Consensual incest is much more uncommon anyway.  The only examples I can even think of are connected to dynasty building and has no place in the modern world.  As to consensual polygamy, I don't really care.  Polygamy is a time honored type of marriage and even though I wouldn't enter in to it, I don't think it is unnatural or dangerous if it is not imposed against choice.  It does mess up community property and makes wills difficult to execute though.

[katherine the great]

So you are suggesting biological and cultural reasons for prohibiting certain types of marriage?

 

How is this different than same-sex marriage?

No.  I'm saying that people in all cultures at all times have been averse to incest.  It is truly unnatural to human beings.

[jaxenro]

"With no evidence that gay marriage is harmful to children or society, I think it makes sense"

 

So if evidence emerges in fifty years would you seek to change it then? Meanwhile we just experiment changing the fabric of society and hope for the best?

 

I think you introduced the best evidence yourself:

 

"Law is not concerned with "holy matrimony."  

 

Law is not concerned with matrimony any more as a building block of the family unit for procreation and there is considerable evidence, already, that having children out of wedlock is harmful to children and society. Yet SSM is just another link in the chain divorcing marriage from the family unit.

 

No SSM doesn't strengthen marriage it helps remove the reality from marriage. Marriage no longer means what it did it means whatever we want it to mean. A man and woman no longer seek societies sanction to form a family and commit to raising children but two "loving" individuals commit to "share their love" with one another. So enlightend. So 21st century. And children no longer need a mother, a father is just as nurturing as a female. He has his paternal instinct at play who needs maternal.

 

Girls are no longer stigmitized for unwed motherhood, so 19th century, we are too enlightened to stigmitize anyone. Yet it is their children, and ours, that pay the price.

 

Among people my daughters age in Massachusetts (but perhaps not Idaho) it is the norm to not have the biological father living in the house with his children. Want to tell me this isn't harmful to children?

 

Sorry but I think it's, forgive the expression, crap.

[jaxenro]

"No.  I'm saying that people in all cultures at all times have been averse to incest.  It is truly unnatural to human beings."

 

I disagree. If people were averse to incest there wouldn't be restrictions on it.

 

One of the earliest "jokes" I heard from a missionary from Utah was that the only virgins in Utah were the ones that could outrun their fathers and brothers. Usually jokes have a basis in truth, however slim.

[giotto]

     IMHO I don't see living in the latter days as a pendulum swinging as much as those few who are holding on to the iron rod, those struggling lost souls in the mists of darkness, and those ever growing, ever louder, and ever more present crowd in the great and spacious building.

    My concern with same sex marriage is due to the fact that "wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10). I have difficulty believing if homosexuals receive everything they desire in the name of equality, that they will ever achieve the happiness they are looking for. My question is: if they can marry, adopt children, and be accepted and lauded as much as possible in society will it be enough? And if it isn't enough, if they find that after all their victories that they are still not happy, who will they turn against as the source of their unhappiness? Will it be religions that preach that practicing homosexual acts is a sin? If so, how will they be punished? By making that preaching a hate crime, thereby incurring fines and threats of jail time? Will tax exemptions for donations be abolished for churches who preach this? Will my children be forced to study pro homosexual school curricula? Even in a home school environment?

     I'm sure some here will say that this is an extreme mode of thinking based on paranoia and false stereotypes. Others might feel okay with laws and punishments like these. I see the author of all this to be from the one who wants us all to be miserable like he is. 

[mormonnewb]

The claims I've seen were the whites in some areas were still able to get the same level of work out of them, but without the need to provide sufficient living standards (not that slave owners automatically did that, but there was financial incentive to do so as it cost them to replace slaves killed by neglect plus healthier slaves made for better workers). It didn't matter to them if a labourer died as it wasnt a loss of their property value, they would simply replace the worker with someone else with no penalty attached. Blacks who did not have enough resources to move to look for better job conditions would be forced to take the jobs no matter what.

I am not claiming that the blacks themselves preferred to be slaves, just that I have seen some historians argue that for a time after the removal of slavery there were not sufficient protections in place to control some of the abuses of slavery that carried on without the balance of the responsibility of being a property owner (as sick as that idea is, it is unfortunately real...some people will treat their property better than another human being because of the financial benefit of taking care of property).

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question and you are saying that it just wasn't in some parts they were worse off, but everywhere for a time? I had assumed you made a mistake and meant "worse off" rather than "better off" but perhaps I was wrong.

I think these arguments fail to take into account the most odious part of slavery -- the fact that your spouse or child could be "sold" and you would never see them again. To me, this trumps any issue of relative pay. I simply can't imagine that anyone would seriously argue that the "pay cut" from slave to sharecropper wasn't more than offset by the relief in not worrying that every day might be your last day with your family.

[jaxenro]

"I simply can't imagine that anyone would seriously argue that the "pay cut" from slave to sharecropper wasn't more than offset by the relief in not worrying that every day might be your last day with your family"

 

Don't think anyone is making that argument I know I'm not. Just the claim that ending slavery didn't end bondage for many blacks for another hundred years give or take. And there is still slavery in the world including this country just not legal

[jaxenro]

katherine the great - I apologize if my # 58 post to you sounded a bit strident. I am old enough to know to act more respectful towards a woman but sometimes I get my blood up when posting and forget my manners and also use vulgar expressions

[mormonnewb]

"Being treated a particular way is different than expecting someone's innermost feelings to match that. If someone feels like punching me in the face, I don't care. If they actually do it, that is a problem for me."

Or a Raegan said your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. And that is my point. They can legislate fair treatment, equal rights, anything they want but they can't change people's innermost feelings.

I am sorry for them. To most people they will always be known as the gay couple. They will always be different. They will never feel truly at home in a community unless they segragate and no one, myself especially, is advocating that. Many of them think that once they pass SSM legislation they will be just the same as everyone else and except for a few right wing religious fanatics in the deep South, everyone will accept them. But no, in their innermost feelings most people will still think of them as different and although they might not ever say it don't you think people can tell?

So in the end I don't think SSM will acheive for them what they crave, true social acceptance.

What you wrote here flies in the face of the evidence that we witness around us everyday. Without question, our children are more accepting of gay couples than we are. The opposition to SSM shrinks with every younger age group.

My 19 yo son has NONE of the animus of which you speak. In fact, the sight of two men walking down the street arm in arm would not even cause him to turn his head. To him, a gay couple is ABOUT as "normal" as a straight couple.

And I truly suspect that his son will feel even less bias towards gay couples. Sure, there will always be holdouts, just as there are still holdouts to interracial marriage, but they will continue to shrink in numbers. And the people who will be stigmatized are those who openly oppose them, just as we currently stigmatize those who current advocate for "racial purity."

[Calm]

I think these arguments fail to take into account the most odious part of slavery -- the fact that your spouse or child could be "sold" and you would never see them again. To me, this trumps any issue of relative pay. I simply can't imagine that anyone would seriously argue that the "pay cut" from slave to sharecropper wasn't more than offset by the relief in not worrying that every day might be your last day with your family.

I would agree.  But it must have been hard wondering if you could feed them and feeling the full responsibility for it.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED -- WAY OFF TOPIC

Edited March 18, 2014 by mormonnewb

[CV75]

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?

One thing I've learned from the Book of Mormon is that, once human nature reigns, no matter how far in one direction a people advance, they will devolve just as far in the other direction.

 

I think that the so-called "distance" the pendulum swings is relative to how acclimated a society is toward the issue at hand. This is how pendula can at first seem to swing to the extremes, then seem to reduce their arc, and seem to slow down but nevertheless eventually settle at a full "stop" -- which is what I think the Book of Mormon refers to as "past feeling"(Ephesians 4:19 also).

[jaxenro]

What you wrote here flies in the face of the evidence that we witness around us everyday. Without question, our children are more accepting of gay couples than we are. The opposition to SSM shrinks with every younger age group.

My 19 yo son has NONE of the animus of which you speak. In fact, the sight of two men walking down the street arm in arm would not even cause him to turn his head. To him, a gay couple is ABOUT as "normal" as a straight couple.

And I truly suspect that his son will feel even less bias towards gay couples. Sure, there will always be holdouts, just as there are still holdouts to interracial marriage, but they will continue to shrink in numbers. And the people who will be stigmatized are those who openly oppose them, just as we currently stigmatize those who current advocate for "racial purity."

Do you really want to go there? Racial purity? Or make assumptions for future generations just based on your son? Very small sample size even if it based on what I am sure is an exceptional young man.

Honestly neither of us knows the future. Opposition to SSM seems higher among minorities, especially African-Americans (one reason why prop 8 opponents blamed the Mormons so vocally is they didn't want to blame African-Americans who voted overwhelmingly for it) and minorities are gaining as a share of the population. So no you can't with any degree of accuracy predict what the trend will be in twenty years time, of fifty

[mormonnewb]

Do you really want to go there? Racial purity? Or make assumptions for future generations just based on your son? Very small sample size even if it based on what I am sure is an exceptional young man.

Honestly neither of us knows the future. Opposition to SSM seems higher among minorities, especially African-Americans (one reason why prop 8 opponents blamed the Mormons so vocally is they didn't want to blame African-Americans who voted overwhelmingly for it) and minorities are gaining as a share of the population. So no you can't with any degree of accuracy predict what the trend will be in twenty years time, of fifty

My son is an extremely small sample size. Yet, I bet you can't find a single broad-based poll where people under, say, 30 are not in favor of SSM. Therefore, ruling out a pandemic that only affects those under 30, I think it's pretty clear that SSM will only grow in acceptance for the foreseeable future. As my son would say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time" and there are going to be MANY more funerals in the anti-gay camp than the pro-gay camp. Or to paraphrase the senior Senator from Kentucky, "We're just not producing enough angry [traditional marriage folks]."

And the shift in racial demographics won't do much to stem the tide because young minorities are much more likely to support SSM than their older counterparts.

[mormonnewb]

My son is an extremely small sample size. Yet, I bet you can't find a single broad-based poll where people under, say, 30 are not in favor of SSM. Therefore, ruling out a pandemic that only affects those under 30, I think it's pretty clear that SSM will only grow in acceptance for the foreseeable future. As my son would say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time" and there are going to be MANY more funerals in the anti-gay camp than the pro-gay camp. Or to paraphrase the senior Senator from Kentucky, "We're just not producing enough angry [traditional marriage folks]."

And the shift in racial demographics won't do much to stem the tide because young minorities are much more likely to support SSM than their older counterparts.

Of course, nothing can be known for sure about the future but the growing acceptance of gays and lesbians is a pretty safe bet.

[BlueDreams]

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 have a little more time, but am pretty finished for the day mentally. 

 

I don't see either one of these likely to change their current projection anytime soon. For out-of-wedlock births, the main thing is about the current life choices that are viewed as ok or even preferable and the smart thing to do in society. These include long courtships, waiting for the absolute right time (usually entailing finances), living together before marriage, etc. These mean that marriage is more limited and delayed while sex is not. It increases the likelihood of children being born in such situations. Demographics of poverty, disenfranchisement, etc also increases this rate drastically. So rates are high....few think this is a good thing, plenty think it's a bad turn. But many....it's just the new norm and is a neutral event. So in my age bracket, where about a 1/4-1/3 of all children were born out-of-wedlock (including yours truly)....the reactions are varied to those who've had this experience. For some, like myself, sex and children are a no brainer. For others, it means just being far more precautious...which often just delays and retards the pregnancy rate....not stop it entirely. For others still the circumstance that they were raised in means that sex is open for exploration, with or without greater precaution. And even for me, one whose pretty stolid about making sure what type of environment I want to raise kids, single parenthood isn't viewed as impossible or all that taboo, few feel the need to hide the fact anymore. It happens and it can work. So I don't think it'll continue on the drastic increase that was happening, but I don't see a drastic decrease in it within the next couple gens.

  

 

On SSM....that's a little different as well. I mentioned in an early post that slavery did pendulum swing back towards large-scale oppression and seperation of peoples. The reason for this is in part the reason it probably won't happen with SSM. Often with drastic changes in societies the ones that are more effective, whether for better or worse, are the ones that have a greater grass-roots based and consistent belief in the ideology behind it. The ammendments to end slavery and make blacks citizens were ineffective to maintain change because the people who had held greater power, resources, and representation in certain areas hadn't actually changed their own beliefs. It was imposed on them and the vast majority of the black populace still had little economic and social power to really make change in these regions. Other areas of development in other regions of the world have equally hit backlash or fallen back to practice, because of this same problem. Top-down approaches with few means of enforcement or little support to the actual base don't go far.

 

SSM does not have this same problem any longer....not to the same extent. Those who support it have a fairly robust political and social support base through media and legislation to maintain their position, if not further it more in the coming generations. The moral/philosophical base for it is solidly ingrained into the american psyche, not specifically from this itself but as a logical contingent to it. Marriage is less about some sense of social responsibility, maintenance to tradition, raising children, etc. The societal responsibility that has been tied to marriage in the past, though there to some regards, is less important than a core concept of egocentric love and the responsibilty more to the individual/pair. It's one that most people to some extent value. Who really believes, for example, that you should marry someone that you're not really in love with? A: Very few. Being in love is key to our sense of marriage and commitment.The extremes to this, probably won't fly for a very long while, because they come in conflict with other moral sensibilities that are still heavily ingrained and with less ability to pull up the support. SSM no longer really has this problem.

 

So unless a huge upheaval in ingrained moral ideologies that underpin SSM changes and have grown organically for 50-60+ years...long before the SSM push, SSM itself isn't likely to have any form of real pendulum swing. What I see at most happening is just a continuing gap socially between those who hold some sort of moral objection to the idea....but many of these will probably find middle ground to balance the idea (ie. it's their choice, I don't agree with it nor see it as marriage because of a,b, or c and participate in a faith-community that doesn't practice it).

 

 

With luv,

BD

[california boy]

CB a question, and please don't answer if it is too personal or makes you uncomfortable. Once you have won in the courts, which is where this might be heading, and have the right to marry in states which rejected it at the ballot box, where will you turn if it still doesn't give you the social acceptance you seek?

Did the SC end the abortion debate by striking down laws banning it? Do you think courts can legislate family approval?

Marriage is meaningless without social acceptance. You may gain legal rights

 

Not to personal at all.  In fact I will answer your question in a very personal way.  I am not married to my boyfriend and don't really intend to even though it is legal to marry in California.  The reason I don't marry is because there is no compelling reason for me to marry especially since the church does not consider gay marriage as valid.  If it did, then I would probably decide to marry.

 

I fight for gay marriage because I don't believe in discrimination.  I believe everyone in this country should have equal protection under the law.  Whether gay couples choose to marry is completely up to them, just as it is straight couples.  It is about civil rights.  Gays just seem to be the minority that is not currently getting equal protection under the law.  If there was another minority that was being discriminated against, I would be just as passionate in fighting for their equal protection.  

 

I don't care one bit about social acceptance.  It is completely irrelevant to me.  I am openly gay for heavens sake.  If I wanted societal acceptance, I would stay in the closet and pretend to be straight.  I clearly knew that by coming out, my family, and many of my friends would reject me.  And living a life with someone I loved would also mean that I would have to leave the church that I loved.  Obviously, being honest and not pretending to be someone I am not is more important to me that social acceptance.  Every gay person knows this as well.  We start from a position of not being accepted by some in society.  Your assumption that gay marriage is about social acceptance is COMPLETELY wrong.

 

I am very happy with my life.  I am completely in love with my boyfriend and we share a wonderful fulfilling life together.  I am surrounded with amazing friends both straight and gay and feel very blessed.  I really live a magical life and feel very lucky. If someone has a problem with me being gay, that is entirely their problem, not mine.  Like I said, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with society acceptance, it is ONLY about equal protection.  And that is the only reason it will become legal in the United States within the next couple of years.  I passionately fight against discrimination no matter who is being discriminated against.  I hope some day you will join me.

[jaxenro]

Not to personal at all. In fact I will answer your question in a very personal way. I am not married to my boyfriend and don't really intend to even though it is legal to marry in California. The reason I don't marry is because there is no compelling reason for me to marry especially since the church does not consider gay marriage as valid. If it did, then I would probably Odecide to marry.

I fight for gay marriage because I don't believe in discrimination. I believe everyone in this country should have equal protection under the law. Whether gay couples choose to marry is completely up to them, just as it is straight couples. It is about civil rights. Gays just seem to be the minority that is not currently getting equal protection under the law. If there was another minority that was being discriminated against, I would be just as passionate in fighting for their equal protection.

I don't care one bit about social acceptance. It is completely irrelevant to me. I am openly gay for heavens sake. If I wanted societal acceptance, I would stay in the closet and pretend to be straight. I clearly knew that by coming out, my family, and many of my friends would reject me. And living a life with someone I loved would also mean that I would have to leave the church that I loved. Obviously, being honest and not pretending to be someone I am not is more important to me that social acceptance. Every gay person knows this as well. We start from a position of not being accepted by some in society. Your assumption that gay marriage is about social acceptance is COMPLETELY wrong.

I am very happy with my life. I am completely in love with my boyfriend and we share a wonderful fulfilling life together. I am surrounded with amazing friends both straight and gay and feel very blessed. I really live a magical life and feel very lucky. If someone has a problem with me being gay, that is entirely their problem, not mine. Like I said, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with society acceptance, it is ONLY about equal protection. And that is the only reason it will become legal in the United States within the next couple of years. I passionately fight against discrimination no matter who is being discriminated against. I hope some day you will join me.

My position that gay marriage is about social acceptance comes from the court papers regarding prop 8. The plaintiffs rejected civil unions, and the judge agreed, because they didn't offer the social acceptance of marriage even though they offered the same legal protections. That was the legal rationale for striking down prop 8.

Edited March 19, 2014 by jaxenro

[jaxenro]

My son is an extremely small sample size. Yet, I bet you can't find a single broad-based poll where people under, say, 30 are not in favor of SSM. Therefore, ruling out a pandemic that only affects those under 30, I think it's pretty clear that SSM will only grow in acceptance for the foreseeable future. As my son would say, "Progress happens one funeral at a time" and there are going to be MANY more funerals in the anti-gay camp than the pro-gay camp. Or to paraphrase the senior Senator from Kentucky, "We're just not producing enough angry [traditional marriage folks]."

And the shift in racial demographics won't do much to stem the tide because young minorities are much more likely to support SSM than their older counterparts.

There is a big difference between supporting gay marriage and social acceptance of gays. Yes many youth in polls, and in abstract, support SSM but still look upon the individual's as different. There are simply far too many cases to the contrary to support that. Your view on minority youth is it supported by data or conjecture? For instance do you consider the hip hop an rap cultures, hugely influential in minority areas, to be supportive on gays?

[jaxenro]

It's always problamatic to count on the long term trends of youth. One of the most conservative voting blocks today is the baby boom generation born between 1945 and 1964. One of the reasons Republicans do better in mid term elections is turnout is lower among minorities and youth in midterms so more baby boomers. Yet what is another term for baby boomers? The Woodstock generation. Not a voting pattern one would have predicted in 1968.

 

On abortion youth are more likely than their parents to be pro life. (1)  So on what many consider a defining social issue we see a reversal of the trend line. Social trends are not linear they jig and jag. Personally among the youth I think the support for SSM is wide but shallow. Ask them if gays should marry the answer is most likely to be yes. Sure why not, they don't consider marriage necessary anyway or all that meaningful. People enter and leave it all the time, many don't bother with it anymore. Why should it matter who marries?

 

People are strange. As a group 50 teenage boys might support SSM in a poll and still call one another a homo as a slur. You are trying to infer social acceptance from political action. You can't.

 

(1) A Gallup poll cited by a pro abortion group

 

http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/america%E2%80%99s-youth-more-pro-life-ever