At the risk of starting another mini-war on this topic, I saw this article in a copy of The New Republic when I was at the hospital on Monday, waiting for the bone scan (no breaks, incidentally, so we still don't know where the pain is coming from).
Folks on Hatrack, regardless of their positions on this subject, have always struck me as thoughtful and intelligent, and the article was so well written, in my view, that I was curious to see what y'all would think of Rauch's arguments.
I've been saying something along these lines for a while, but he does it way better than I have (or can).
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Marriage is under threat, all right. The threat, however, comes not from gay couples who want to get married but from straight couples who either do not get married or do not stay married. A third of American children are born to unmarried parents. The divorce rate has doubled since 1960, and the marriage rate fell 40 percent from 1970 to 2000. Cohabitation rose 72 percent in the 1990s. Twenty-eight percent of young couples aged 18-29 are unmarried.
I will think about that on my daily walk to work. Interesting point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>The threat, however, comes not from gay couples who want to get married but from straight couples who either do not get married or do not stay married.
Why? Simply on this guy's say so?
I agree with him that infedelity and pre-marital cohabitation in heterosexual couples is more dangerous to society than gay marriage. However, I do not agree with his conclusion that allowing gay marriages will help halt the apparent (according to him) rise in this behavior.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why? Simply on this guy's say so?
Well, yeah. It's an essay.
But I agree with most of his points, although he could have used some modifiers. He spells out in more detail what I've been posting to this forum for many years now: the emphasis must be on commmitment. When hetero marriage is in seemingly dire straits and children see gay couples wanting to sign up and stay together forever, which is the better role model?
However, I do not agree with his conclusion that allowing gay marriages will help halt the apparent (according to him) rise in this behavior.
Actually I think it's apparant according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
quote:44% of American adults are currently unmarried (2000 data). This number has been rising steadily: in 1970 36% of Americans were unmarried; in 1980 39% of Americans were unmarried; in 1990 41%of Americans were unmarried. - "Marital Status of the Population 15 Years Old and Over, by Sex and Race: 1950 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, 2001
Whenever a couple wants to commit to each other, in sickness and in health, to raise their children and form a productive family unit, it strengthens society. This seems self-evident to me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You know, I think you're right about the stats, Chris-- I was thinking I'd seen some numbers showing that pre-marital cohabitation was down, but it was pre-marital pregnancies I was thinking of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Why? Simply on this guy's say so?
Well, yeah. It's an essay.
Wow. Can we have that framed and put in a stickied post, to be referred to whenever someone is frothing over OSC's latest column?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I want to froth.
How come I never get to froth?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You so do get to froth. Regularly.
Are you going to make me find specific examples?
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I want to froth.
How come I never get to froth?
You need to buy a frothing attachment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes.
You NEVER let me froth.
I mean NEVER. It's a pity that I can't use HTML skillz here to make that NEVER even more bold and fierce.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
I believe that one of the major issues affecting the children of gay couples, is how they will be treated by their peers. Hopefully they would be in an environment where their peers are understanding, caring, and accepting. However, I know from experience that that is often not the case. I still remember the horrors of middle school, and it is in those environments that the children themselves would be punished for their parents sexual orientation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JannieJ:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I want to froth.
How come I never get to froth?
You need to buy a frothing attachment.
Actually, I think they have add-ins for IE and Opera that support frothing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Yes.
You NEVER let me froth.
I mean NEVER. It's a pity that I can't use HTML skillz here to make that NEVER even more bold and fierce.
And let's have a moment of silence for the late, lamented <blink> tag...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Zarex,
That's true to an extent, but less and less. And when you think about it, the same thing is true of any difference. Biracial children. Jews. My ex grew up in Kansas City. The kids used to throw pennies at her in the hallways. The solution to such things is to try and teach the offenders that they shouldn't do it. Not to surrender to them. Otherwise nothing ever changes.
Lisa
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
That is a very interesting article, starLisa. Thanks for linking!
Here in Canada we had Gay marriage shoved down our throats without a national consensus(sp?!), and I wish that some of the pro Gay marriage people had been able to put thier argument across like this fellow has. It would definetly help those of us opposed to same-sex marriage feel like people on the other side of the argument were at least thinking instead of simply calling the rest of us homophobes and bigots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
WonderDog
quote: Here in Canada we had Gay marriage shoved down our throats without a national consensus(sp?!),
Wow... In Canda you have to get married to someone of the same sex? Wow...
Why would the Canadian government have any say in whom you marry? That's outrageous!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:The 2000 census counted about 160,000 same-sex-couple households with one or more children. Those children, of course, would be directly affected if their parents got married, and there seems to be little dispute that the effects would be positive.
He makes an assumption here that is faulty. His assumption is that a census reported same sex couple household must be gay. In fact, I would have been one of those 160,000 that year, but the other female in my house was my mother. I believe it's reasonable to assume that my case was hardly rare, and that a significant portion of that 160,000 was not made up of gay couples, but of two men or two women who were pooling their resources for the good of their children, and who, given the opportunity, would never marry each other.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" His assumption is that a census reported same sex couple household must be gay."
And your assumption is that the census doesn't distinguish between gay couples, and people living together for convieince. Some facts might be a good idea at this point.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, actually the census did differentiate between hetero couples and homosexual couples when people of the same sex reported living together.
quote:Although the stereotype of a gay couple's household is one that is child-free, Census 2000 found that a substantial proportion of same-sex couples do hear the pitter-patter of little feet. Nationally, there are children under the age of 18 in one-third of households headed by lesbians. Lesbian couples in the South are the most likely to have a kid at home: There are children under 18 present in 33 percent of these households. In Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah, 4 in every 10 households headed by lesbians have at least one child present. Lesbian partnerships in the Northeast are the least likely to have children in the home (31 percent).
A smaller, but still significant, proportion of households headed by male partners are home to children. There are children under the age of 18 in almost a quarter (22 percent) of the households of gay male couples, Census analysis reveals. The state with the largest share is Alaska, where there are children under 18 in 36 percent of households headed by gays. (At the other end of the scale, just 17 percent of Florida's gay couples have kids.) Other states in which there are kids in at least 30 percent of gay couples' households include South Dakota, Mississippi, Idaho and Utah. State laws relating to child custody placement and adoption by same-sex partners, as well as variations in childbearing patterns, are all factors accounting for these differences.
Although the number of children being raised by gay parents is substantial--some estimates put the figure at close to 3 million--marketers are not quite ready to reach out to gays and lesbians as parents, according to Stephanie Blackwood, cofounder of Double Platinum, an agency that focuses on the gay market. Blackwood, whose agency counts Procter & Gamble and IBM Consulting among its clients, says, "At this time, there doesn't seem to be enough mass to attract the interest from marketers." Still, at least some marketers have started to pay attention to the trend. And Baby, for example, a magazine launched in 2001 and published in Brooklyn, has attracted several national advertisers. With the trend of same-sex couples adopting children continuing, says Blackwell, it's only a matter of time until the gay and lesbian parenting market gains in size, strength and importance.
Paul, certainly. I don't recall if that question was specifically on the forms, though I remember filling them out. It's certainly possible, though I think it unlikely. Please let me know if you find I'm mistaken in my belief, and I will happily withdraw my point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm still waiting for the examples of when I've been allowed to froth.
Hello, rivka?
:waiting:
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As an opponent of same-sex marriage, here's my take on the article:
The auther argues gay marriage is good for marriage in general in that it increases the total number of marriages, demonstrating to little kiddies that there's lots of people out there willing to commit to each other until death or divorce do us part.
The argument seems to me to presuppose that the only part of marriage that is important is commitment. But the core of my opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is about more than just commitment. By watering down the definition of marriage we can certainly be more inclusive, but I don't see how that benifits the cause of marriage in general. I have a similar problem with universalists who water down religion to the point where it can include any belief, but has lost any meaningful way of distinguishing itself from anything else.
Furthermore, I would argue that there's no guarantee (or even indication) that legalizing gay marriage would increase the marriage rate or decrease the divorce rate, two metrics of marriage "strength" cited in the article, since the rates would now be derived from a larger base. Contrarily (and without studies or statistics to back me up) I think it would tend to decrease the marriage rate and increase the divorce rate, leading to a weakening of marriage even on the metrics used by the author.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
jeniwren, the 2000 census forms may not have directly asked if it was a homosexual couple or if it was an arrangement made for convenience, but I'm pretty positive they did ask the respondent to list all the members of the household (starting with the owner/person who pays the rent, followed by their spouse/partner, then their children in order of age, then non-immediate family members, and lastly any non-family members) and their relationship to the respondent. There's even a nifty set of boxes to add a type of relationship if they don't feel the options they were given suffice. At least that's how we're doing it for our 2005 Special Census.
It'd be pretty obvious how everyone was related to each other, I'd think.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Thanks Uhleeuh, that's really helpful. I appreciate it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Senoj: What else is important about marriage then, if not commitment?
Also, the marriage rate WOULD go up because gay couples would get married. The marriage rate is based on the total population, not the total heterosexual population.
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Then there's that whole problem of 'GOOD' being subjective...
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: WonderDog
quote: Here in Canada we had Gay marriage shoved down our throats without a national consensus(sp?!),
Wow... In Canda you have to get married to someone of the same sex? Wow...
--Enigmatic
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pH- The rates referred to in the column referred specifically to the perception by children. That rate (at least as I read it from the column) is number of married adults over number of adults who live in a marriage relationship (with or without formal marriage). If children don't perceive gay couples to be living in a relationship that could result in marriage, those couples should be considered external to the base the rate is derived from.
I don't know what the national marriage rate is measured with respect to. Total population? Total population over a certain age? I'm just going from my interpretation of how the author of the article framed the issue.
As to what is important in marriage besides commitment I would say gender diversity.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Total population over 15, according to the census.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Senoj: "The 2000 census counted about 160,000 same-sex-couple households with one or more children. Those children, of course, would be directly affected if their parents got married, and there seems to be little dispute that the effects would be positive. Marriage would, to begin with, give their families the additional legal security that marriage provides. The children would have, as Evan Wolfson notes in his book Why Marriage Matters, “automatic and undisputed access to the resources, benefits, and entitlements of both parents.”"
What I see this referring to is that the children of gay couples would enjoy the LEGAL benefits of marriage, first of all.
I don't see any numbers whatsoever that take into account the CHILD's perception of the relationship.
And marriage rates in the Census (where I think these numbers are coming from), from what I understand are (married individuals)/(married individuals + unmarried individuals).
EDIT: And what I meant when I asked what marriage was about besides commitment was that I would like to know what elements you consider important to marriage besides commitment and two people of different genders, since as an opponent of gay marriage, I would take that particular factor as a given for you. I guess what I really want to know is why?
-pH
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
..*inarticulate grumbling at Senoj*
>,<
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As to what is important in marriage besides commitment I would say gender diversity.
Really? I would say commitment, dedication to raising healthy, happy, productive children, a loving and supportive environment for each other and for children and older relatives, financial security, dedication to supporting the needs of the locality (neighborhood, city, state, country), friendship, and positive role models (which I suppose could be considered gender diversity depending on how you defined "positive role model").
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Chris: I didn't say it was an exhaustive list
I feel like this is going to get pretty contentious, which is something I want to avoid (KarlEd's already upbraided me once for fighting too much). I don't want a fight, I'm just posting from my perspective why I didn't find the article convincing.
From the article:
quote:Straight children benefit when they look all around and see marriage as the norm. If a child sees that Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the neighbors to the left, are married, and that Mrs. and Mrs. Jones, the neighbors to the right, are married — that sends a positive and reassuring message to children about both the importance of marriage and the stability of their community.
This is where I developed my understanding that I based my rate comment on, not on his paragraph of census statistics, since this is where he's arguing why legalizing gay marriage is good for marriage in general.
The point is that if a straight child looks one way and sees Mr. and Mrs. Smith are married, and looks the other and sees Mrs. and Mrs. Jones are not married, but couldn't be even if they wanted to, the stabilization of marriage is not necessarily strengthened by broadening the base definition of marriage.
My comment on gender diversity was not facile (sorry for the grumbling, Treason). I sincerely believe that an important component of marriage is having people of two genders, rather than just two people. It's important (I believe) because of the biological and spiritual differences inherent in gender.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. I don't mean to shout you down. And one of the modifiers I would suggest the author add is that gay marriage may be good for marriage. Obviously it's going to have many different effects, probably as many as there are people.
Suffice it to say that I find my position just as compelling and self-evident as you do yours. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The threat, however, comes not from gay couples who want to get married but from straight couples who either do not get married or do not stay married. A third of American children are born to unmarried parents. The divorce rate has doubled since 1960, and the marriage rate fell 40 percent from 1970 to 2000. Cohabitation rose 72 percent in the 1990s. Twenty-eight percent of young couples aged 18-29 are unmarried.
While the number of people cohabitating without marraige would decrease immediately if gay marraige were legalized, I find it doubtful that gay couples would be any more likely to stay together than straight couples. Roughly the same percentage would cohabitate before getting married, would get divorced after marraige, and at least some would hace children out of wedlock.
I have no problem with gay marraige, but I don't think this a very compelling argument.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: As to what is important in marriage besides commitment I would say gender diversity.
Really? I would say commitment, dedication to raising healthy, happy, productive children, a loving and supportive environment for each other and for children and older relatives, financial security, dedication to supporting the needs of the locality (neighborhood, city, state, country), friendship, and positive role models (which I suppose could be considered gender diversity depending on how you defined "positive role model").
And equal division of laundry. Or, laundering diversity.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Would it be possible for someone to list what their objections to gay marriage are? In a noninflammatory informative sort of way? The only arguments I can think of that I've heard are the "ick" factor, the fact that the marriage can't be consumated (or anyway not quite in the same way), and that gay marriage will undermine straight marriage and eventually cause society to crumble. In a non-confrontational way, I must admit that I'm a bit confused as to why any or all of these arguments would be convincing. I think it's important to understand where everybody is coming from, so I thought I'd ask.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:The 2000 census counted about 160,000 same-sex-couple households with one or more children. Those children, of course, would be directly affected if their parents got married, and there seems to be little dispute that the effects would be positive.
He makes an assumption here that is faulty. His assumption is that a census reported same sex couple household must be gay. In fact, I would have been one of those 160,000 that year, but the other female in my house was my mother. I believe it's reasonable to assume that my case was hardly rare, and that a significant portion of that 160,000 was not made up of gay couples, but of two men or two women who were pooling their resources for the good of their children, and who, given the opportunity, would never marry each other.
Um... you're mistaken. The statistic does not refer to households made up of two people of the same sex. It was specifically about same-sex couples. Check the census site yourself if you don't believe me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm still waiting for the examples of when I've been allowed to froth.
Hello, rivka?
:waiting:
Does frothing about frothing count?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:And equal division of laundry. Or, laundering diversity.
Jannie, no no no....that's what the kids are for! I'm working toward equal division of cooking.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:The argument seems to me to presuppose that the only part of marriage that is important is commitment. But the core of my opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is about more than just commitment.
What else is it about, then?
I assume you'll say it's about having children. I agree that we need to do more to encourage people to have children,* but I suppose we could decide that it's sufficently important for people's satisfaction with life to give them help in forming a great commitment to another person.
*So as to keep the U.S. population at a sufficient level to compete with the rest of the world. But of course it would probably be best for humanity's future if we could (humanely!) reduce the world's population by a few billion.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm still waiting for the examples of when I've been allowed to froth.
Hello, rivka?
:waiting:
Does frothing about frothing count?
Meta-frothing is not nearly as satisfying. It's really just a temporary fix.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfagh. That wasn't even drooling.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
To me, the only argument against same-sex marriage that makes logical sense is that neither two men nor two women have the collective personality traits necessary to raise a child properly. But even if that's true, I don't see why two parents of the same sex wouldn't be better than no parents at all for an orphaned child. And I don't know how you establish that the statement is even true.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think that most of the personality traits more often associated with men or with women are often seen in both men and women. Men can be nurturing, and women can be disciplinarians. Men can rock a baby to sleep and women can change a tire.
I agree that there are some things about men that you're really never going to find in women, and vice versa, but they're few and far between, and I can't see how or why they're all that important.
When I hear the argument about needing both male and female influences, it's very often based on a very gender stratified worldview, where men are the big, hairy hunters and warriors and breadwinners, and the womenfolk don't trouble their pretty little haids about all that business.
Besides which, it's not as though we live on desert islands. My daughter has grandfathers and uncles and boy cousins. She has male and female classmates. She has two teachers, one of each flavor. I think she gets plenty of diverse influences.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, I think the ONLY non-religious/ick factor argument that can be made against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriages can't produce children without outside help. And there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that don't produce children, so I don't see why that's an issue.
I also don't see, religious views aside, how having two parents of the same sex could possibly be damaging to the child. Until someone shows me a study that states that children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to shoot up schools and torture animals, I'm not sure there's any way to support this mindset.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
At least initially, legalization of gay marriage would indeed have harming effects on children: people against gay marriage would ostracize children of those unions, just as they do now.
There would be a social backlash from people against gay marriage who see it as an attack on society and fight back, which is why, in my opinion, President Bush won last time (bigger Republican turnout than expected, especially in states that had anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot).
There would be social upheaval. Just as there was following other major social changes, both good and bad.
And there will always, I think, be a portion of the population that simply cannot and will not accept it, for whatever reason.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It seems to work okay for Penguins. Gay Penguins. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Having not read this thread at all, I would just like to say that Jonathan Rauch works at the National Journal, where I am a reporter/intern. He writes a bi-weekly column for us and is generally a very nice, softspoken man
Sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled arguments, I was just excited to find out I knew him
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Here's my problem with the gender roles argument. I'm not the most feminine female out there. I have in fact been told that socially I tend to think like a typical male. So, by this argument, perhaps I should be looking for a female partner? Or a feminine male, I suppose.
You might also argue that many homosexual couples have one partner who tends toward feminine and one toward masculine. There. Both genders. Not both sexes, but why should that be important when it comes to modeling gender roles?
I think gender roles can be quite flexible. I suppose using the argument against homosexual couples bothers me because it assumes that males have one role and females another. To say that children need both, and assume that a same-sex couple doesn't have both, also implies that couples with non-traditional gender roles are somehow unnatural. If a gay man can't stay home with his children and nurture them, clearly the male half of a heterosexual couple can't either.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I wish it were as simple as pointing to a particular quality of maleness or femaleness that is absolute to each sex and therefore cannot be done without. Or perhaps I don't wish such a wish, because I like the mystique.
*shrug* For me, I've tried raising a boy in a two-women household, and I've tried raising a boy in two male-female households, and I have to say there's just something indefinably different about men than women. My two husbands (current and ex) are as different as two different men could possible be, yet they are both absolutely male, and something about that has been really good for my son. I don't think it was bad for my son to have two "mothers" for the years he did...but he did miss out on having a man in his life with the intimacy born of living in the same home.
But that's just one person's experience, and certainly doesn't cover the gamut of human variety. I don't think a child who is thoroughly loved in a healthy way is likely to be damaged irrevocably by what he doesn't have, whether it is a male or female parent that is missing. Everyone, I think, has things they must overcome about their childhood, whether it is poor parenting, lack of financial resources, missing parents, whatever. All things being equal (meaning the impossibility of equal parenting skills, financial resources, and other environmental factors), I'd say this was the spectrum of good to worst: two parent male-female; two parent same sex; one parent involved, one not so much; only one parent; and no parents at all. Just my opinion, but that's seems to me how it falls out.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: To brand marriage as the discriminatory lifestyle choice risks condemning it to cultural obsolescence
I do have several friends ( younger, straight couples) who have chosen not to marry out of protest of the lack of gay marriage rights. I think he has a point here.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
I think that we all have rights of association, and the government has no business rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. same-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else because this rewarding is tantamount to theft.
We have to ask the government to exercise our own right of association, and if the masses condescend to let us marry, only then we can marry.
I think all laws concerning governmental control over marriage should be removed and replaced with a system of voluntary private contract. If individuals wish to associate as in marriage, then they can create and sign an enforceable (for a fee) contract that stipulates the terms of their association.
In this way everyone inclduing homosexuals, heterosexuals, and polyamorists, can enjoy the full freedom of their rights of association.
Perhaps a counterargument to this proposal is that governmental subsidization of marriage promotes the greater good by ensuring a stable environment for children. Government subsidization does not cover the entire expense of raising children, so I think there is other motivation for getting married. Thus, people will continue to get married under a voluntary private contract system because whatever motivates people now to get married should continue to exist if government stops subsidizing marriage.
Removing government from our lives will streamline the tax code and remove excessvie administrative baggage, making the economy more efficient, and hopefully maing us all a little bit richer.
If marriages are good for children, then polyamorists should be allowed to marry. Some men have trouble remaining faithful to one woman. Suppose that the man has fathered children on both his mistress and his wife, then a polyamorous union would allow both of his children to have a father. The couple can consider the benefits of the polyamorous union on their own instead of being forced into awkward situations where the man cannot control his "cheating" because government has deemed, in its considerable wisdom, that we are not worthy of making our own decisions.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think part of the problem is the idea of the "traditional family." In modern American society we think of Mom, Dad and kids as the family. The "nuclear" family that supposedly permeates our society today is indeed disappearing as the census data shown previously indicates, but in reality, it hasn't been in existance for as long as people like to think either.
Throughout history the most traditional "family" that has existed is actually one man with several women. It was considered normal and even expected for men to keep a mistress even after he married. Women also often had lovers outside their marriage, though when they did, it was often much more discreet than a man was with his mistress.
We created this idea of what a family should look like along with television shows like Leave it to Beaver and other classic television. We put them on tv and stated, "This is a normal family." Even then it wasn't true, it was a new model of what the family should look like.
The nuclear family is simply Mom, Dad and kids. If you are remarried and someone is a step-parent, then you are not a part of the "traditional" nuclear family anymore. Likewise, single parents, same-sex partners who are parents, widows and widowers are all excluded from the nuclear family model.
At the age of 26, I can probably count on one hand, the number of friends I had in school and even today, who are actually a part of the traditional nuclear family, and I know for a fact that none of my friends in school came from a household with same-sex partners as the parents. In fact, in a group of friends my senior year in High School (1996-97) nearly 10 years ago there were 10 of us who hung out regularly. Of those 10, 3 of us came from what could accurately be described as a "traditional nuclear family." That's less than half. And, before someone brings class into the question, we were all from Middle Class homes.
The argument for same-sex marriage is not what is destroying the family. The "traditional" family began disappearing years ago.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: I think that we all have rights of association, and the government has no business rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. same-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else because this rewarding is tantamount to theft.
So... you don't have a problem with the government rewarding some people (through the tax code and through special benefits) for exercising this right of association in a specific way (i.e. opposite-sex marriage) at the expense of everyone else? You don't consider that rewarding tantamount to theft?
Gee... I wonder why.
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: We have to ask the government to exercise our own right of association, and if the masses condescend to let us marry, only then we can marry.
I think all laws concerning governmental control over marriage should be removed and replaced with a system of voluntary private contract. If individuals wish to associate as in marriage, then they can create and sign an enforceable (for a fee) contract that stipulates the terms of their association.
But you know that's not going to happen. Right? I mean, you're talking about something theoretically, when this affects people in real life. I totally agree that the government shouldn't be in the marriage biz. And there's as much chance of getting them out of it in my lifetime as there is of getting them to restrict themselves to police, army and courts, as they should.
In the meantime, there is a fairness issue that arises when my brother and his wife get goodies from the government that my partner and I don't get.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You should all read the article in Time Magazine about this.
According to polling data, 38% of adult Americans are in favor of gay marriage, but 58% of college freshman are in favor of it, and many of those have Republican or at least conservative leanings.
The idea of homosexuality and gay marriage is much much more palatable to the next generation than it is to the current one in power. Doesn't mean proponents of gay marriage should give up and wait, but at least there is hope for them in the future. Progress comes with time, and the death of the close minded.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: At the age of 26, I can probably count on one hand, the number of friends I had in school and even today, who are actually a part of the traditional nuclear family,
Andi, you made excellent points. I only snipped for length.
I'm 42, and I was 8 before I even knew such a thing as divorce existed. My best friend told me one day that her last name was going to be different, and I was kind of blown away.
Things have changed fast in a short time, but I wonder if they've changed all that fast everywhere. My partner and I are still the only ones in either of our families ever to have gotten a divorce. Both of us married, intending to stay together forever, just like our siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles did and are doing. We intend to stay together forever.
Nowadays, most of the people I meet are from what used to be called broken families. We had some people over for lunch on Saturday, and one guy was describing his family, and I'm telling you, I would have needed a pen and paper to get it all. It was that complicated.
I think that a healthy and stable family environment is the most important thing for kids. I honestly do. Which is why it's so hard for me to understand why some people want to stand in the way of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Throughout history the most traditional "family" that has existed is actually one man with several women. It was considered normal and even expected for men to keep a mistress even after he married. Women also often had lovers outside their marriage, though when they did, it was often much more discreet than a man was with his mistress.
We created this idea of what a family should look like along with television shows like Leave it to Beaver and other classic television. We put them on tv and stated, "This is a normal family." Even then it wasn't true, it was a new model of what the family should look like.
I don't know how true that is. American families have historically ALWAYS been 2 parent, male-female households. For the first couple centuries, divorce was RARELY allowed, and even then only in the cases of extreme spousal abuse. The 50's is when this family lifestyle was glorified and commercialized, but it wasn't invented here, it has long standing roots.
And if you want to look at historical marriages. Many African cultures didn't even have marriage, men owned a harem of women they could do whatever they wanted with. Arab cultures were polygamous, and in some cases it could go either way, with multiple husbands or wives. Ancient Greek culture in many ways glorified the man/man relationship, with a wife's only purpose being breeding stock. This was especially true to Spartans. But where marriage was applicable in many European cultures, especially in the AD years, monogamy has been more prevelant than polygamy.
The ancient Athenian statesmen Hippias, who was in charge of Athens in the years between conflict during the Persian Wars was actually killed over a three way love triangle with two other men.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But even in the US, sure, LEGALLY monogamy was important, but I think a lot of men had mistresses and things.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Right, but you are talking about the sex life of married couples, not about the families. Mistresses haven't ended a two parent home, or at least, they didn't until the mid 20th century. A man was socially allowed to have a mistress, but it wasn't to interfere with his duties as a father and husband. For a man to leave his wife for his mistress was frowned upon heavily back then, and was not done very much.
Now a days it's alright. Couples stayed together back then because it was socially unacceptable for them to break up. So they had affairs, but they were very secretive.
As far as their sex lives go though, you are correct, a sizeable portion of men and women back then had affairs.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know how true that is. American families have historically ALWAYS been 2 parent, male-female households. For the first couple centuries, divorce was RARELY allowed, and even then only in the cases of extreme spousal abuse. The 50's is when this family lifestyle was glorified and commercialized, but it wasn't invented here, it has long standing roots.
That's my point, at just over 200 years old, America is an extremely young country. I also didn't say that marriage consisted of one man and many women, but that the "family" which does not necessarily consist of marriage, was historically more often one man and many women a harem of sorts, whether owned or not.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
quote: starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
I know sL can speak for herself but I just wanted to add that as far as I remember, she is a Libertarian so I'm sure she understands what you're saying here. For me, I just think it is extremely unlikely that the government will ever do as they should and stay the heck out of marriage, so I fight for equality.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Andi330-
I still disputed your historical claim. Americans didn't invent the modern family unit, if anyone did, it's the Europeans.
How far back are you going historically? And what region of the world? I don't think you can generalize the history of marriage of the human species like that. You have to talk about it in terms of a specific culture. There has NEVER been ONE cultural norm dealing with marriage. Akkadia's version of marriage in 3500 BC was different from Egypt's, and from Greece's, and China, and North America, and so forth.
If you strictly mean European-American (Western World) cultural norms for marriage, then your harem of women theory is totally off and mostly baseless. Up until 300 AD, homosexual relationships and state instituted pederasty was a cultural norm, and sometimes was even mandated by law. But that's going back quite a ways, I don't know how far you intended to go back.
If you want to swing back to 1700AD, the family unit of a two parent household and kids was firmly entrenched in Europe and in America. Harems of women never lived inside the household, not in 1700, not in 1500, I don't even think in the second millenium.
If you want to bring other cultures into it that's fine, but then you are comparing apples to cows to volkswagons. The only commonality is that genetically, everyone on earth is human. Beyond that, behavioral connectivity on a cross cultural level doesn't exist when it comes to the family unit and marriage.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Should also point out that for most of the country in the first 120 years, the "norm" was one man, one woman, and a passle of relatives in close conjunction.
When discussing the evolution of marriage, don't forget:
-- The exodus of population from rural areas -- where it was more likely you'd have relatives nearby, and maybe in the same house, to help out with child-raising -- to urban areas where you were on your own. -- The increasing habit in the 20th century of putting older relatives in rest homes, thereby losing a source of cheap child care.
When the question is put forth, "Why do we need two-persom incomes when we didn't use to?" to condemn people for not staying home with their children, I wonder how much of it is because of the weakening of the extended family.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah! That's a really good point I forgot to mention Chris. Extended family used to play a vital role in child rearing.
I rarely ever see my aunts, uncles and cousins, just at holidays.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
In our society, gay people can get all the free milk they want.
But they still want to buy cows. Doesn't that say something nice about the value of cow ownership?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Rakeesh: I think what was intended was that saying, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" Meaning, "If you sleep with someone, he won't marry you because he's already gotten what he wanted from you." Or something along those lines.
-pH
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: starLisa, I do have a problem with government rewarding some people for exercising their right of association irrespective of what kind of association that is. The fact that I gave same-sex marriage as an example of this does not imply that government should reward people that have an opposite-sex marriage. I think this should have been clear when I said that I think that government should stay out of marriage.
If it were impossible that theoretical ideas could happen, then nothing would happen because every idea before it is implemented is theoretical. Thus, theoretical ideas must happen sometime because ideas are implemented sometimes. Maybe if more people believed that the government should properly restrict itself, then the government would restrict itself because people would vote for it to do that.
There is also a fairness issue when it comes to not having your money stolen from you and given to people that have never earned it.
Amen, Jacob, but no one but the nuttiest of Objectivists thinks that such a thing can be accomplished overnight.
And by the by, a lot of the rights that same-sex couples are currently denied aren't a matter of them being given something by the government. They're a matter of being less restricted by the government. You should support that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: In our society, gay people can get all the free milk they want.
But they still want to buy cows. Doesn't that say something nice about the value of cow ownership?
Moo.
I think you were being too obscure for most people.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk."
Um... yeah. I told you it was too obscure. What theamazeeaz said was that gay people can have sex without marriage. But they want marriage anyway. Doesn't that say something good about marriage?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I know sL can speak for herself but I just wanted to add that as far as I remember, she is a Libertarian so I'm sure she understands what you're saying here.
<wince> No capital "L", please. I lost any hope of the Libertarian Party being more than a joke -- ever -- when the LP candidate for Lt. Governor in California campaigned on a single issue platform: ferret legalization.
Jacob sounds like someone who has very recently discovered the ideals of freedom and liberty, and tends to assume that everyone else just hasn't gotten there yet.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: For me, I just think it is extremely unlikely that the government will ever do as they should and stay the heck out of marriage, so I fight for equality.
Oh, maybe they will. But in the meantime, equality is an excellent first step.
Lisa
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Eliminating democracy and replacing it with oligarchy -- that's what really harms society. Including children.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Whether or not it's labelled a "ban", Defense of Marriage Acts - which are present in at least 75% of states if memory serves - state that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
If that's not a ban in different words, feel free to prove me wrong.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Oh and if we're bringing up gender roles and such, what about a couple with someone whose gender role does not align with their sex. For example, a male identified female with another female or a female identified male with another male.
Considering the fact that you can get an operation to change your sex, how do people feel about that?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Defense of Marriage Acts - which are present in at least 75% of states if memory serves - state that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
If that's not a ban in different words, feel free to prove me wrong.
OK. "Ban" means "prohibit" (according to Merriam-Webster); "state" means "to express in words" (same source). These obviously aren't related. There is no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; there are, however, laws declaring that the state will not recognize it.
Because of the First Amendment, my church membership may not be recognized by the government. Would it be reasonable to conclude that church membership is illegal in my state? Of course not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There is no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; there are, however, laws declaring that the state will not recognize it.
I submit that, for the purposes of this discussion, you are meaninglessly parsing words. The difference here is purely semantic, at least as far as the availability of civil marriage is concerned.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The analogy I would make is this.
Some people love Cow's milk.
A few love Goat's milk.
Each can get all the milk they want for free.
The majority buy the cow to get the milk.
For those who love Goat's milk, the government says, "You can have all you want for free--you just can't buy the goat." Or to be more exact, "... but only those who buy the cow get a subsidy."
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison, theamazeeaz, but I think I disagree. Homosexuals can't get all the free milk they want.
To carry this dairy analogy further, they want to drink goat's milk. Currently the government says, "Well we aren't going to let you do that. You can drink cow's milk all you want, however, and we'll even give you cool stuff for doing it. But not goat's milk." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um... yeah. I told you it was too obscure. What theamazeeaz said was that gay people can have sex without marriage. But they want marriage anyway. Doesn't that say something good about marriage?
Well, not THAT obscure... OSC even uses the cow analogy in Teacher's Pest with a little porcine twist, so I would have expected it to be slightly more well understood than it was. But, yes, the sex without marriage example was what I meant. People use the metaphor to discourage premarital sex by pointing out that sex is supposed to be a perk of marriage.
Though I think I like the idea of calling it "goat's milk." Not all people are comfortable with the idea of drinking goat's milk as opposed to cow's milk. Others think it is wrong. But the fact is, it's still milk, it's not unheard of, and people have been drinking it since forever. Why should I worry?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The difference between prohibiting an activity and not endorsing it is "merely semantic"? Only in a totalitarian state.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will: you're talking about using the word marriage and attempting to practice it as a merely social custom. When proponents talk about gay marriage they mean the civil recognition, which is forbidden.
You're the one playing semantic games.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Can I come in the city?"
"Are you a native?"
"No, but I'd like to..."
"I'm sorry, only natives are allowed."
"You've banned strangers?"
"What? Dear me, no, that would be inexcusably rude. We would never enact such a ban."
"So I can come in?"
"Of course not, you're not a native."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Technically, no state has banned gay marriage.
What they've done instead is tighten the laws so that the option simply cannot come up, making such a ban unnecessary. No reason to ban what can't happen.
Of course, to the people in favor of gay marriage this is a very finely split hair indeed.
[ October 09, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Porter, surely you're aware that no state in the union has ever had a ban on gay marriage; and that no such ban has been proposed, on either side.
Um... that's entirely untrue. Almost a dozen states passed constitutional amendments last year which not only banned same-sex marriage, but some of which barred any kind of civil-union type arrangement that would allow same-sex couples any protections whatsoever.
There were people in Michigan who suddenly found themselves without health insurance when the government found that according to law, they had to cancel domestic partner coverage.
Check your facts.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Eliminating democracy and replacing it with oligarchy -- that's what really harms society. Including children.
Hmm... it's interesting. When Massachussetts made same-sex marriage legal, all of the antis were screaming about how the courts shouldn't do it; the legislature should. But last week, when the Govinator vetoed the California law making same-sex marriage legal, he said that such things need to be done by the courts, rather than by the legislature.
Pardon me if it's difficult to see such objections as being made in good faith. The antis are anti. They'll come up with excuses for it one way or the other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
theamazeeaz,
I got it. But then, I'm old.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>The antis are anti. They'll come up with excuses for it one way or the other.
There's no excuse for getting what you want within the bounds of the law.
Shame on them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I submit that it really doesn't matter at all whether "gay marriage" benefits children or not. Unless it can be shown that having same-sex parents significantly harms a child - say, worse than having straight parents who fight constantly - then the government should stay the hell out of it.
All other things being equal, the sex of the parents has no bearing on whether they are or can be fit parents. If they are unfit, it is for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation (e.g. abusive, deadbeat, negligent, etc.). As I've said before, perhaps having two "dads" and no "mother" is somehow less than ideal. So what? We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
Attempts to curtail the rights of gay couples to parent children by arguing they are "less than ideal", (a specious arguement anyway), are not born of considered interest in the well being of the children. They are born of anti-gay sentiment. There are hundreds of ways a child's environment can be demonstrably less ideal than having same-sex parents which we do not consider grounds for removal of parenting rights. There are even ways parents can be demonstrably harmful to their children* which we don't consider legal grounds for removing parenting rights. Why target gay couples, except for the irrational fear of them becoming equal participants in community and society at large?
*Straight parents can bicker constantly. Parents can be cold and un-loving. Parents can pass on their own bigotry and hatred. In fact, there are any number of negative qualities parents can pass on to their children that we don't consider legal grounds for loss of parenting rights. Why is some nebulous lack of "something" supposedly unique to one gender or the other more legitimate grounds than these?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That was well said, Karl.
We disagree about the issue, and I think we always will fundamentally, but you present a very compelling argument that I'm going to have to think about.
Curse you.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
/clap Nice, Karl!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is what I compliment:
quote:We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
And I compliment it because it's a solid argument.
BUT-- what happens if it gets shown, Karl?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
It won't. I really believe there is no possible way that gay parents do not meet at least the bare minimum in child raising. What argument would you have that says they do not?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: BUT-- what happens if it gets shown, Karl?
I don't understand how it would be possible to do this without legislating a much higher "bare minimum" than we currently enforce.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But last week, when the Govinator vetoed the California law making same-sex marriage legal, he said that such things need to be done by the courts, rather than by the legislature.
Pardon me if it's difficult to see such objections as being made in good faith.
Only if you ignore the fact that a court in CA is currently hearing a case that will decide a very important issue about the referendum that was passed on this subject.
I think CA's referendum process is a poor way to run a government, but the legislature chooses to run over it on this issue? Why?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This is what I compliment:
quote:We don't legislate ideals in parenting. We legislate the bare minimum. Unless it can be shown that all gay couples, by nature of their being gay couples, are inherently less able to meet that minimum, barring gays from being parents is unjust discrimination.
And I compliment it because it's a solid argument.
BUT-- what happens if it gets shown, Karl?
Well, if it gets shown, then barring gays from being parents would arguably be about more than simple unjust discrimination. But as others have said, I'm pretty confident it can't be shown. I'm also pretty confident that it can't be shown because it isn't true.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
starLisa:
quote:And by the by, a lot of the rights that same-sex couples are currently denied aren't a matter of them being given something by the government.
Obviously, this is true. No right can be something where the government gives someone something because this is a privilege. Rights are protected by the government.
quote:Jacob sounds like someone who has very recently discovered the ideals of freedom and liberty, and tends to assume that everyone else just hasn't gotten there yet.
Perhaps my application of the principles of freedom and liberty is pedantic, but people do seem to forget the principles of freedom, if they ever understood them in the first place, because they make laws that violate them. They need to be reminded.
I'm curious what any of your definition of equality is? Does this involve more government theft and special privileges? This isn't closer to a free society.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
--
[ October 10, 2005, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Schwarzenegger said that the people's will, as expressed by referendum, should not be reversed by the legislature. Of course, the people are not the courts. To claim that they are is nonsensical.
quote:Almost a dozen states passed constitutional amendments last year which not only banned same-sex marriage, but some of which barred any kind of civil-union type arrangement that would allow same-sex couples any protections whatsoever.
You state this -- and then tell me to check my facts? None of these states banned gay marriage. This is a matter of public record. Look at the laws. Not a single on prohibits gay marriage. They simply refuse to recognize it.
If refusal to recognize something is prohibition, then religion is illegal in the US. So's beauty. Love. Lots of other things that the government doesn't recognize or regulate.
It takes a special political perspective to claim that something is prohibited unless it's licensed and regulated!
[ October 10, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
The reporters and the states call it a ban apparently...
Also, when you're allowed to do something, then told you are no longer allowed to do it...is that a ban?
"None of the 11 states allow same-sex marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 3,000 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To ban or not to ban? That is the question.
And it's a lame one. As I said, technically it's true. There is no legal ban. There is no law that says "You folks can't marry, neener neener neener." The laws state instead that marriage shall be one man and one woman.
But, and this is the important part, to the people fighting for acceptance of gay marriage, it's exactly the same thing. The possibility existed before, but the marriage amendments added one more large, possibly insurmountable hurdle to overcome. It's welding the door shut but saying that you haven't banned anyone from coming in. If it looks like a duck and legislates like a duck...
Arguing over the semantics when the real discussions need to be over the social advantages/disadavantages of gay marriage is useless and diversionary, as is the question of rights and privileges. Proponents of gay marriage who demand it as a right will lose. Proponents of gay marriage who demand it as a privilege will lose. Justified or not, both sound selfish, a whiff of "I want what they get."
What will bring gay marriage into society will be evidence of the injustice to the people and children involved and the benefit to society of a social structure for a large amount of its citizens, something this thread was starting to touch on before this digression.
[ October 11, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Not a single on prohibits gay marriage. They simply refuse to recognize it.
For all intents and purposes, the states banned gay marriage by refusing to recognize it.
quote:What will bring gay marriage into society will be evidence of the injustice to the people and children involved and the benefit to society of a social structure for a large amount of its citizens
Not exactly. When has evidence mattered in gaining social priveledges/rights? History shows us that protest and ornery-ness win out over honest, widespread cultural self-examination every time. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Arguing over the semantics when the real discussions need to be over the social advantages/disadavantages of gay marriage is useless and diversionary
Thank you for that, Chris. I wanted to say that myself, but couldn't find the phrasing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So if I passed a law saying that Religion, and all the governmental breaks afforded to a religion, like being tax exempt organizations, would be defined as a belief system that excludes Jesus Christ, that wouldn't be banning Christianity?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, it doesn't take a special perspective at all.
All it takes is a desire to be treated as something other than a third-class citizen. Are you kidding me with this? Please.
And Jim Crow laws didn't ban blacks from voting either, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are important reasons to make the distinction. When polygamy was banned, it was banned. Criminalized, even for people who didn't attempt to get the state to recognize their multiple marriages. Living in a house with multiple "wives" could result in lengthy prison terms. Prosecutions have happened within the last decade, I believe, and children have been taken away simply on a finding that the parents are engaging in polygamy.
Until recently, gay couples living in long-term committed relationships faced most of these risks; some still exist. But the progress has been immense and, since Lawrence, the ban on homosexual marriage has not been of the same quality as the ban on polygamy.
I think it's important that the wording reflect the difference. Gay couples are being denied a host of benefits that others get through marriage. This denial of benefits is what causes any existing social disadvantages. it also couches it more clearly as a benefit of law question, which is what I think more likely to change people's minds.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka, I haven't got to froth yet.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Go froth, and sin no more.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You ain't rivka.
Get thee behind me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<snort>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will:
Refusal to give civil recognition to something most certainly is a ban on civil recognition of that thing.
Religion is banned from certain sorts of civil recognition. Gay marriage in the way the proponents are talking about it and you aren't is banned.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
OSC makes the point that no law bans anyone from marrying. What they are currently NOT permitted to do is enter into an arrangement that is something other than marriage, and then call it marriage.
I fear calling such arrangements "marriages" will only serve to further trivialize marriage, which, as many of you have pointed out, is not doing so well right now.
But it is the effects on the kids that concern me the most, for the following referenced reasons.
1. The life expectancy of homosexual men is 8 to 20 years shorter than the total male population.
Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997
2. Homosexuals are up to 6 times more likely to suffer from mental illness.
Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001)
Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999)
David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999)
3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book). The US Dept of Justice study below found an annual average of 13,740/16,900 homosexual/lesbian victims of domestic violence. (Aside: contrast that to 1,558 victims of sexual orientation hate crimes in 1999. Who's really the principal threat to homosexuals' safety?)
Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000)
U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine, (January 2000)
David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, Haworth Press (May 1991)
4. There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years. (Adultery destroys heterosexual marriages, so I don't think infidelity would help homosexual relationships.) On the contrary, homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year.
In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984)
Meyer-Balburg et. al., “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” 28 Journal of Sex Research, 1, 3-27 (1991).
Xiridou, Maria, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003
Where in this world would you put children?
In light of these numbers, how can ANYONE claim gay marriage will benefit children?
These are just a few of my societal reasons for opposing. I have a personal one as well, though it didn't develop until I already knew the foregoing.
I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
Early last year Gina began hanging out with this girl "Sarah." Sarah is several years younger than Gina, likes the same sport, and is a lesbian. They became inseparable in spite of Sarah's emotionally abusive and manipulative personality. Gina became increasingly hostile and Zoe became depressed under her influence. Gina revealed to Mom and Dad that she was considering living a lesbian lifestyle. Mom and Dad called a family meeting and shared this with us, encouraging us all to continue to love them both. I believe we did a decent job of this.
In May Gina and Zoe moved out. Gina's hostility and Zoe's depression got worse. Soon, Zoe told her best friend that her mom was "being gay with [Sarah]." We started noticing bruises on Gina's arms, neck and chin, depite her attempting to cover them with turtlenecks and long sleeves. Zoe drove off all her friends and started on an anti-depressant.
After a month or two Gina stopped the sex with Sarah, but continued being friends. They'd go to Vegas and take Zoe along. At some point Gina started drinking. (I didn't quote you the stats on lesbians and binge drinking.) Zoe was doing poorly in seventh grade.
Finally, maybe 8 months ago, Gina saw what was happening and told Sarah to stay away from both of them. Sarah continued to call and see Zoe behind Gina's back. At this point Zoe trusted and obeyed Sarah way more than she did her own mother, despite Sarah's constantly belittling her. Finally Gina confronted Sarah and Sarah stopped.
Zoe moved back in with her grandparents and is doing much better. She's happy, off the meds, and doing well in school. She has her best friend back. Gina, in the meantime, is pretty screwed up.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
I'm certainly no expert, but it seems unlikely that a lot of people are having 308 sex partners in a year. There are only 365 days in a year. When do they find time to cook and do laundry? If anyone has that kind of energy, it seems like they'd live a lot longer than the average population, to tell you the truth. Also, if there a lot of gay people in the closet, how on earth does anyone know how many people they are seeing anyhow? Honestly, I think those statistics sound pretty silly.
[ October 11, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: JannieJ ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering I have a pair of aunts who have been monogamous for approaching ten years now (how long they've been in a relationship, pretty much), I find your "statistics" laughable, and suspect all or almost all of them will prove likewise silly and false.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I also doubt these statistics.
And don't 1 in 3 heterosexual men and 1 in 4 heterosexual women cheat, as well? Not that I have a source right now to back that up, but that's what I seem to remember reading.
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year."
That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. How on earth could you post it with a straight face?
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
Maybe this is like the "Question Authority" thread? Someone says "statistics are this and that" and we aren't supposed to question it?
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
quote: homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year
Yeah, I find that highly suspicious, especially when you imagine the range of numbers that you'd need to get this "average" - taking the idea of a bell curve into consideration, if that statistic is true, for that to be an average, you'd need a fair number of people who had even more than 308 partners a year to counterbalance the ones who had more monogamous relationships. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years.
My uncle has been living with the same man for 22 years now, and they claim to have been monogamous for that entire period. While I of course can't verify this claim, I think it's only charitable to assume they're telling the truth -- unless you can tell me why I should assume they aren't.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Tom,
In all that blatantly false statistical cr@p, the one that bothered me the most was this statement about never being a documented case of ...
What a load of horse manure.
mistaben, I suggest that you double check all your facts (and your assumptions while you're at it). If you post obviously flawed data, all it does is destroy any shred of credibility you might have had.
If we can't trust your numbers, why should any of us trust your opinions. Flawed data lead to flawed decisions.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
oops! You did indeed find an error. 308 was the average number of partners ever! Sorry for the confusion. As an aside, the person with the highest number of homosexual partners had 18,000.
Concerning monogamy, I was careful to leave the word "documented" in there for this very reason. There's bound to be some couples who have managed it, but they are exceptional.
As to whether or not the other statistics are "laughable," you're free to read the original journal articles and papers. That's why I posted them. If you find the researchers' methods equally humorous, please inform the universities where they did their respective studies. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Documented" by who? And what does it mean to be "documeted" in this sense?
Has anyone ever "documented" a monogomous heterosexual marriage?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Nice first post, mistaben.
I won't repeat what others have said other than to say I can assure you none of your statistics apply to me, Chris, or very many of my gay friends.
The story about your family is a sad one. However, your personal anecdotes can only go so far. To take that story as an indication of the general unfitness of gays to parent is no different from taking a story of heterosexual abuse and extrapolating that no straight couple could be a fit parent.
308 sex partners per year indeed. . . I bet most of us are hard pressed to have 308 orgasms a year, including the ones we give ourselves. Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Bob, I must ask the same of you. Check your assumptions if you are able to easily dismiss results that were published in peer-reviewed journal articles, several of them by individuals supportive of the homosexual movement.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
To say that there's never been a DOCUMENTED case of homosexual monogamy for more than five years...
To disprove that, don't we only need to find ONE case of monogamy?
And here we've found two.
What constitutes a documented case, anyway? I mean, it's not like they can stalk people in relationships to make sure they don't cheat, so I'm assuming they go off what people say. Which means that if we have people here who know others who have been or are themselves in a monogamous relationship that has lasted more than five years, these claims are just as valid as that "study" or whatever.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As an aside, the person with the highest number of homosexual partners had 18,000.
Wilt Chamberlain had sex with 20,000 women.
What's your point?
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Thanks Karl. I've been a lurker for too long.
I'm glad you're not among these unfortunate stats. While I personally don't think certain behaviors are good for individuals or society, I don't wish misery or pain on anyone!
You also bring up an excellent point that I forgot to add. My family's story, while supportive of some of the stats I listed, is indeed anecdotal, and should be treated as such.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
The principal point of my post was simply to refute the title of the thread. I don't believe that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions will benefit kids in general, and these statistics are a few of my reasons. Lots of children may individually benefit, but I believe overall and in the long run society will be damaged.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
How would society be damaged if "lots of children may individually benefit?" Aren't the children a vital part of our society? I'm sorry, but that seems contradictory.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mistaben, you haven't answered pH's point. If we can find one case of a homosexual relationship lasting more than five years, what does it matter whether your citations come from peer-reviewed journals. I'm not in a position to question those articles since I haven't read them. I am in a position to question what you've posted ABOUT them. Whether those supposed facts came from the articles or you simply misunderstood them, the obvious conclusion is that the numbers are not factual and therefor not useful in forming decisions.
Perhaps there were some qualifiers on the statistic about "no cases of..."? If you'd like to use those stats, I merely suggested that you double check them. They don't pass the laugh test and so there's nothing compelling there for anyone else to go check. If you are going to state obvious falsehoods as if they are facts, you have to expect at least a certain amount of head scratching here.
Are the articles available online? If so, provide a link and I'll go check them out. If not, the citations are also pretty much moot for the moment, unless you have the journals in front of you and can give us some direct quotations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't believe that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions will benefit kids in general, and these statistics are a few of my reasons.
Point #1: Your statistics are questionable at best, and laughable at worst. Don't base your reasons on them.
Point #2: You may be confusing correlation with causation. Many of the behaviors you consider harmful in homosexuality may be a product of societal disapproval -- unless you believe that there is something about sticking tab A in slot B that inherently messes somebody up. (And if so, what?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I personally believe his conclusions are questionable along with his conclusions. But unfortunately I'm not informed enough about statistics in general and psychiatry / medicine in particular to refute the studies and statistics he's linked.
I'm hoping that one of the many Hatrackers quite skilled in one, more, or all of those areas will give my uninformed and lazy self something better than it's laughable because we say so to go on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you actually like the context of all those studies, Rak? They've been cited so often by various anti-gay groups that I'm afraid I know most of the backstories by now. Of course, you can also find those studies on Google fairly easily nowadays, along with commentary, precisely because they're standard misused statistics in the FUD toolkit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I dug out the original articles.
1. This is pretty much entirely due to HIV, and based on statistics over 20 years old. As HIV has disseminated more greatly in the heterosexual community now, and prevention efforts have been greatly successful in the homosexual community, these statistics are pretty much worthless for any current decisions.
2. The first study involved all of 120-odd homosexual people. It also found that homosexual people were around 2 to 5% more likely than heterosexual people to have one of a variety of conditions, many of them minor. Considering the social pressures on homosexual people even in relatively accepting countries, this is hardly surprising, and moreso relatively meaningless as far as judging a homosexual couple fit to adopt.
I didn't bother looking at the second two studies as my time is limited and the first study postdates the other two while criticizing all previous studies on the subject.
3. To quote the journal of family violence study, which talked about their significant sampling problems, "results should be interpreted cautiously, and may not be indicative of the entire gay / lesbian population." Quoting the same study "It further indicates that g / l / b/ t people experience physical and sexual violence at similar frequencies to heterosexual people. " Twice as likely indeed (note this study is both more recent and more reputable than the book).
4. I'm not even bothering with a book done in 1984 on homosexuality. On the study done in 2003, their use of the term steady partner was not based on relationships, but on the notion of a regular sex partner. As such, trying to say homosexuals in avowedly monogamous relationships will have 8 outside sexual partners a year (the number is from this study) is laughable.
I haven't even started looking for possible refutative studies, this is just the easy pickings from the very ones you cited.
Net findings: some useless statistics on life expectancy from 20 years ago (which even were they true couldn't feature in adoption decisions, or else you'd have to support forbidding black people from adopting on similar criteria), a tiny increase in possibility of mental issues which can be ameliorated entirely by the standard procedure of, y'know, not putting kids with people with mental issues or who seem at specifically risk for such based on interviews, and a flawed interpretation of data from a study on sex partnerships done in amsterdam, a location with (surprise surprise) a completely different sexual culture than the US, making the study precisely useless in determining whether its appropriate for US homosexual couples to adopt (not that its useful in the netherlands, either; the behaviors in the study are, again, ones that would be selected against in adoption, particularly as the study was specifically of young homosexual men).
BTW, someone needs to create a Shepard's for scientific studies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh! And in the domestic violence study, they specifically not that the violence is due to a much smaller number of violent people that move from relationship to relationship.
Applying just a tidbit of logic, I'd like to note that homosexual couples, lacking marriage as an option, will tend to have a higher relationship mobility (marriage is a stabilizer); thus, we might expect higher numbers of homosexuals who had been in an abusive relationship than heterosexuals even with an extremely similar percentage of abusers. Though as noted before, the study itself argues the numbers who have been in abusive relationships are comparable at the resolution available.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
*applauds fugu* Nicely done!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:I bet most of us are hard pressed to have 308 orgasms a year, including the ones we give ourselves.
--Enigmatic
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I fear calling such arrangements "marriages" will only serve to further trivialize marriage, which, as many of you have pointed out, is not doing so well right now.
The thing is, de facto same-sex marriages do and will continue to exist. And kids seeing that they do so without getting married will simply be seeing it as one more case of adults blowing off marriage.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: But it is the effects on the kids that concern me the most, for the following referenced reasons.
1. The life expectancy of homosexual men is 8 to 20 years shorter than the total male population.
Yeah, yeah. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous on the whole than straight men, maybe. And lesbians tend to be less so than straight women. It has a lot to do with the basic differences between men and women.
Furthermore, denying the stabilizing factor of marriage to a segment of the population and then criticizing it for a phenomenon that results from the lack of stability is kind of creepy.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 2. Homosexuals are up to 6 times more likely to suffer from mental illness.
I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book).
Lesbians are the least likely of anyone to tolerate such behavior. That makes them more likely to report it when it happens. But I dispute those figures anyway.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 4. There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. But if you really believe it, I'll end it right now. My partner and I have been in an exclusive and monogamous relationship for almost 8 years now. I don't know what kind of "documentation" you want. I suspect that there's never been a "documented" case of a heterosexual relationship being monogamous for more than a year.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: (Adultery destroys heterosexual marriages, so I don't think infidelity would help homosexual relationships.) On the contrary, homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year.
That's garbage. Heterosexuals have more sexual partners on average than lesbians. The fact is, men and women are different. This difference creates differences between male-male couples, male-female couples and female-female couples. Think about it for a while.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
Men or women? And what's the rate in the Netherlands for heterosexuals? Surely you wouldn't do anything as dishonest as compare gay stats from Holland with straight ones from the US.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: Where in this world would you put children?
In light of these numbers, how can ANYONE claim gay marriage will benefit children?
Your numbers are incredibly selective. And your polemic ignores the thrust of the argument, which is that the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent. You have straight people abandoning marriage at a tremendous rate, and here's this group of gay people who are dying to get married. It's not rocket science, mistaben.
Furthermore, none of the studies you presented deal with the subpopulation of gay couples with children. You might as well use stats about college party animals and apply them to suburban families with kids.
But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing, and that presenting slanted information is your intent.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
I was once mugged by a black guy. Somehow, I've managed to avoid concluding from that that black people are violent criminals. From the sound of you, you wouldn't have.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Wow. You guys are razor-sharp! I love this place!
Experimental physicists love to maximize confidence levels. That is, how well does our data support theory? I sometimes take it for granted that other researchers would do the same. Big mistake. So that's what I get for using someone else's compilation of research. A tit-for-tat response to fugu's items will have to wait for another post. But next time Google Scholar and I will go to town!
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The thing is, de facto same-sex marriages do and will continue to exist. And kids seeing that they do so without getting married will simply be seeing it as one more case of adults blowing off marriage.
I disagree. Kids already view marriage as an optional/maybe-later/ties-you-down/old-fashioned kind of thing. I think once the definition of marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples (and polyamorous groups, as is bound to happen, see http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301), marriage will become a complete joke. How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road? Then who will want to get married? If anything goes, it doesn't really mean anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yeah, yeah. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous on the whole than straight men, maybe. And lesbians tend to be less so than straight women. It has a lot to do with the basic differences between men and women.
Furthermore, denying the stabilizing factor of marriage to a segment of the population and then criticizing it for a phenomenon that results from the lack of stability is kind of creepy.
I don't think anything will change when same-sex marriage is available. People of any orientation who are sexually active with many partners before marriage will have a difficult time becoming monogamous. Not to say it's impossible; human beings are capable of amazing things. I just don't think loyalty will necessarily increase.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well.
I've lived in Seattle for over a year now. Imagine, an old-fashioned conservative (though not Republican anymore--that's for a different thread) like me in a bastion of liberal thought like the Emerald City. I don't think I've developed any stress disorders, but it has been uncomfortable sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Lesbians are the least likely of anyone to tolerate such behavior. That makes them more likely to report it when it happens. But I dispute those figures anyway.
On what do you base the statement that lesbians wouldn't tolerate it and would report it?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. But if you really believe it, I'll end it right now. My partner and I have been in an exclusive and monogamous relationship for almost 8 years now. I don't know what kind of "documentation" you want. I suspect that there's never been a "documented" case of a heterosexual relationship being monogamous for more than a year.
Apparently no one has ever submitted a paper to a sociology journal including data that refutes this, at least at the time the referenced paper was published. That's all that means. I'm glad you've been loyal to your partner, and vice-versa. Things are soooo much better that way for both!
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's garbage. Heterosexuals have more sexual partners on average than lesbians. The fact is, men and women are different. This difference creates differences between male-male couples, male-female couples and female-female couples. Think about it for a while.
I've somewhat addressed this, but it is important to note that male-male dynamics and female-female dynamics are quite different.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
Men or women? And what's the rate in the Netherlands for heterosexuals? Surely you wouldn't do anything as dishonest as compare gay stats from Holland with straight ones from the US.
It was homosexual men with a steady partner. And surely I wouldn't (and didn't), but thanks for only intimating that I have no character, and not actually attacking.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Your numbers are incredibly selective. And your polemic ignores the thrust of the argument, which is that the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent. You have straight people abandoning marriage at a tremendous rate, and here's this group of gay people who are dying to get married. It's not rocket science, mistaben.
No, I agree exactly with what you just said above:"the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent." But you write as though you believe a rush of homosexuals bursting through the floodgates to get married will send marriage rates through the roof and reenthrone marriage on its pedestal. I have a lot of trouble believing that will happen. Less than 5% of the US population is homosexual, and not all of them want to get married. Of those who do, how long will it last? There are couples like you and your partner, but the first gay divorce in MA was only 7 months after the first gay marriage in MA. If divorce rates among homosexual married couples are any different than those of heterosexuals, I'd suspect they'd be higher, not lower, especially among males. This can't help marriage, and will likely hurt it. It will help you, but not the institution.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Furthermore, none of the studies you presented deal with the subpopulation of gay couples with children. You might as well use stats about college party animals and apply them to suburban families with kids.
But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing, and that presenting slanted information is your intent.
Sounds pretty sinister!
Wanna know what really happened? It's quite simple. Lurker finds thread on topic of import to him. Lurker reads post asking for people's reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. Lurker remembers reading something somewhere with lots of interesting stats. Lurker transforms by the Power of Grayskull into mistaben. mistaben creates post with old stats. mistaben ignores feeling he should actually read all of the studies so as to not look like a fool. etc.
But thanks for the warm welcome.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
I was once mugged by a black guy. Somehow, I've managed to avoid concluding from that that black people are violent criminals. From the sound of you, you wouldn't have.
No, it's seriously no big deal that you mock my family's pain and accuse me of being a bigot at the same time. See my exchange with KarlEd.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road?
I think this is the same for gay marriage threads as mentioning Nazis is for regular threads.
I see absolutely no point in debating with someone who could equate two people marrying with marrying a horse. It saddens me that you make that comparison.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road?
I think this is the same for gay marriage threads as mentioning Nazis is for regular threads.
I see absolutely no point in debating with someone who could equate two people marrying with marrying a horse. It saddens me that you make that comparison.
And it saddens me that you either didn't understand what I wrote or are deliberately putting words into my mouth.
Nor did you respond to the question. Do you deny the existence of incest and bestiality (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=brodeur19m&date=20050719, use bugmenot.com to get in)? Do you think a "zoophile" could not eventually find a federal judge who would pull a constitutional right to have sex with a horse out of Lawrence v. Texas?
Think about it. Respond to it. THEN you can attack me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sex with an animal, even if made legal, is nothing like marrying an animal. That's like suggesting sex with a blowup doll means there's a potential for a person marrying a blowup doll.
Saying a relationship potentially like marriage in every way (even for you, excepting the particular physical genders of the participants) is like the relationship between a person and a horse is offensive, stupid, and wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, as long as your "arguments" remain largely identical to those the opponents of miscegenation held high, it makes you awfully hard to take seriously.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Besides, how would you get the horse to sign the marriage license?
If you want to play the "slippery slope" game: Eventually sexual intercourse with animals will become legal because giving them handjobs is legal right now, and has been for years. Heck, I saw a man masturbate an elephant on television, and he was getting paid to do it! (By the zoo, not by the elephant.) If this sort of thing isn't outlawed it'll erode marriage and elephant prostitution will be legalized!
Think about it. Respond to it. Or just dismiss it as obviously ridiculous drivel. You know, whichever.
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Your sarcastic slippery slope is really a straw man, Enigmatic.
Not that it's the first in this thread...
And, also, straw man arguments can make good points, as can slippery slopes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I really don't think that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy.
And I definitely don't think that there's any similarity between a man marrying a man and a man marrying a horse.
I actually saw something on Livejournal today suggesting that gay marriage would lead to adults marrying children.
For starters, a child or a horse can't legally consent.
-pH
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
(Edit: This was in response to MPH) Meh, maybe it is. I don't see exactly how, but I'm not trying to make a point about the primary topic of gay marriage. I'm defending RRR's statement that there can be an argument ridiculous enough that he sees no point in debating it.
I think Mistaben would be better off pursuing the incest line for his comparison than the bestiality line. Somebody marrying their parent or child would still be a marriage between human beings, and so one could argue that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing incest-marriage more easily than that it would lead to allowing bestiality marriage. (I am not personally making that argument, just saying it's less easily dismissible than the marrying a horse idea.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
she. Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Enigmatic-"Somebody marrying their parent or child would still be a marriage between human beings, and so one could argue that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing incest-marriage more easily than that it would lead to allowing bestiality marriage."
MUCH better argument, you're right.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
OMG! President Reagan was a woman!?! (Although I always did sort of suspect...)
What?
Oh, not the actual Ronald Reagan, just you? Well then, that's significantly less shocking. Sorry!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The distinction between banning something and not recognizing it is not mere semantics. People go to jail because of the distinction. If the police started arresting gay wedding parties, then gay advocates would admit the difference.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:by mistaben:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by starLisa: I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've lived in Seattle for over a year now. Imagine, an old-fashioned conservative (though not Republican anymore--that's for a different thread) like me in a bastion of liberal thought like the Emerald City. I don't think I've developed any stress disorders, but it has been uncomfortable sometimes.
You aren't seriously comparing the two are you? I don't imagine you have ever run the risk of being fired or arrested for your conservative views? How about disowned by your family? Excommunicated from your church? Shunned by your friends? How is your experience anything like that of a homosexual from the time period of your cited studies? (Or indeed from that of many homosexuals still today?) Why not try a reasoned response to starLisa's point above, as some others have given your thoughts a reasoned response. Or would you rather emmulate those who have dismissed your posts lightly and without much thought?
More to the whole point of your original post: I reject that many of those statistics were true back when they were published, and even less so today. Compiling statistics on homosexuality is notoriously difficult because those homosexuals willing to be counted and analyzed have mostly been on the fringes of society, both "gay society" and "general society". Until recently, you almost had to have a "screw society" mentality of some sort to even accept yourself as a homosexual. And even then acceptance of yourself as a homosexual didn't mean you were impervious to the idea that you were just accepting yourself as a piece of crap. For most the choice was "Accept yourself and move to the fringe" or "reject/suppress yourself and fit in". Given those choices, it's no wonder there might be a higher incidence of mental illness.
But let's suppose for the sake of arguement that it is a verifiable fact that gays are 6 (or even 10) times more likely to suffer from a mental illness than straights. Well, what are you considering "mental illness" for your study? I'm willing to hazard a guess that the criteria applied in the study wouldn't disqualify a straight person who fit the criteria from being a parent or from getting married. Why should it prevent a gay person, all else being equal? Straight parents can be clinically depressed. Is this automatically grounds for removal of their parenting rights?
Straight parents, on occasion, beat, rape, murder, and otherwise horrifically mistreat and abuse their children. Is the fix for this the abolition of marriage all together or the complete denial of all straight parenting rights? Or do we deal with these issues on a case by case basis as rationality would demand?
quote:mistaben: 3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book). The US Dept of Justice study below found an annual average of 13,740/16,900 homosexual/lesbian victims of domestic violence. (Aside: contrast that to 1,558 victims of sexual orientation hate crimes in 1999. Who's really the principal threat to homosexuals' safety?)
Can you link to the study? This states homosexual/lesbian victims. It says nothing about the perpetrators. Would gay sons beaten by unaccepting fathers count as "homosexual victims of domestic violence"? If a lesbian woman is beated by a straight husband in a former marriage and now lives in bliss with a lesbian partner, how might she answer the question "Have you ever been a victim of domestic abuse?" Would her response count in the above study? In other words, what indication do you have that the above numbers apply strictly to incidents of domestic violence under homosexual heads-of-household? If they don't, then the statistic is meaningless to the discussion at hand.
Oh, and I must say that last sentence is particularly sly and pernicious. When a gay man is beaten, tied to a fence post, and left to die it's useful to know that the perpetrators weren't the principle threat to his safety, isn't it? Hell, they probably even saved him from being beaten when he got back home. Statistically speaking, of course. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The distinction between banning something and not recognizing it is not mere semantics. People go to jail because of the distinction. If the police started arresting gay wedding parties, then gay advocates would admit the difference.
Here's the disconnect. We're not so much arguing the "banning" as the "something". You're saying that gay private social arrangements aren't banned. We're saying that gay civil-marriage ceremonies are banned, de facto, in several states whether the wording is spelled "b-a-n-n-e-d" or not.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many states certainly would arrest someone who kept claiming the civil benefits of marriage for a homosexual relationship (listing them on the tax form as a spouse, say).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The problem with bringing statistics into this argument is that both sides have had their time to froth over the results of already pointed studies.
So, I don't trust 'em.
I don't believe that homosexual marriage will be 'good' for children as a whole, but that's because I don't believe that homosexual marriage is a 'good' step for society to take. It's not based on findings or statistics, and I'm not going to lie to myself, or massage my viewpoint by trying to mold 'facts' into pretty little data points.
I believe that individual homosexuals can be as effective parents as heterosexuals (this isn't QUITE true; the gender modeling bothers me a bit, but I think it can be overcome, like many parenting issues, with love and attention). I don't think that homosexuals with children are more prone to sexually abusing them. I think that, as individuals, most of them would try to raise pretty good kids, just like the rest of humanity.
What it boils down to, is religion. Let's get past all the faux-statistics and pretend-datum-- that's what the homosexual movement is up against. Until the movement can recognize that (and that's one of the reasons I insist that this is not a battle that will be won with logic) and find a way to interact WITH the religious point of view, the two sides will continue to hammer at each other until legislation/court action forces a new balance.
The onus is on the homosexual community, because in the popular culture's mind, God doesn't change. He said don't, and he meant don't EVER. The homosexual movement has started making inroads into religion-- the Episcopalians, for example, and I believe the UMC, both allow active homosexuals to be pastors. I don't know how those particular pastors get through the declarations in Leviticus and Paul's haranguing on the subject, much less through almost 2000 years of Christian commentary on it, but I'm not one of their parsonage. (This is assuming a belief in the veracity of the Bible, and a belief in an unchanging God-- and anyway, I'm rambling. . .)
So maybe I'm wrong-- maybe this is something that can be gently worked into society.
From time to time, I speculate on what would it mean if Mormonism (my religion) came up with a way to validate homosexual couples in the context of the Plan of Salvation. How would we justify it? Because so much of our religion is tied up in the biologically natural way to produce families, what would have to change to admit a pairing that can produce no biological children? (Speaking here of the ETERNAL capacity to produce spirit children, which we've been told can only be done by a male/female pairing). Additionally, the prophets have asserted several times recently that gender is eternal-- meaning that if you are a guy now, you've always BEEN a guy, you'll always BE a guy. We don't have the luxury (though with imagination, there's some squeak room there) to say, "Oh, I'm a female in a male body, that's why I'm gay." (Androgynous people-- yeah, not sure how we deal with that one from a doctrinal point of view).
Is it right to deny someone common priveledges (marriage being a priveledge, not a right) because of religious concerns? Well, from a legal standpoint, no, I don't think so. BUT here's the kicker-- for me, legalizing homosexual marriages is comparable to putting a cultural stamp of approval on pre-marital sex.
And I can't do it.
That's enough rambling for one day. You'll please note that I have not said that homosexuals cannot love eachother, or are just out for a piece, or any other silliness. I've merely compared MY internal feelings on the two subjects. And I fear that I may have exposed too much-- I'm going to go back to being apathetic now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do you support criminalizing premarital sex?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, not really.
But I wish that there were more cultural checks against it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How about "blocking" instead of "banning"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: legalizing homosexual marriages is comparable to putting a cultural stamp of approval on pre-marital sex
Wouldn't it suddenly and dramatically reduce the amount of pre-marital sex actually happening? Besides, Mormons already make a distinction between "real" temple marriages and all the other kinds of marriage, so you may as well say that any non-temple marriage is comparable to the cultural approval of pre-marital sex.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:laughs:
Yes, in a convoluted, techncial way, but that's not really what I'm concerned with.
EDIT: You edit, so I'm forced to edit.
Tom, I DO NOT feel that homosexual relationships are like pre-marital sexual relationships; I said, or tried to say, that APPROVING them would be the same as if I (personal, intimate 'I') approved of pre-marital sex.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not married. Is all of the sex I've had "pre-marital?" What if I never marry (including, if your beliefs are true, in the afterlife)? Was it still all "pre-marital?"
Is it "pre-marital" sex you oppose, Scott? Or is it all "non-marital" sex?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Scott brought out something I'd been thinking about but wasn't going to post on, but now I think I will.
The reason the gay marriage debate is so contentious (IMO) is because "marriage" is a social construct. It is what we say it is. I don't hold with traditionalists who claim some sort of de facto truth about what marriage is on a societal level. Marriage is just what society as a whole agrees for it to be.
Which is why it's not about logic, and it's not about rights, and it's not about the children. These are all convenient talking points, but in the end it's about society recognizing the union of two (or more, in some countries) individuals. And when a society I'm part of recognizes the validity of the union, it means on some level I personally recognize the validity of the union. So we fight for our viewpoints, because otherwise we'll be forced to say something (vicariously) that we don't agree with, and we all want to be honest with ourselves and not be forced to say something we don't mean.
This made more sense before I started writing it. Reading it now, it all seems sort of self-evident. Mostly I was just proud of making the "marriage is a social construct" link in my mind. It really cleared up for me a lot of the conflicting emotions I had regarding it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: APPROVING them would be the same as if I (personal, intimate 'I') approved of pre-marital sex.
But why? Surely my marriage is no more legitimate in the eyes of a Mormon God than KarlEd's hypothetical marriage might someday be. And if you're not particularly bothered by cultural acceptance of my marriage, why might you be bothered by his?
Or, heck, consider Slash and his wife, who're quite determinedly childless and definitely not LDS. Their marriage doesn't meet many of the Mormon requirements for marriage, really -- so why is theirs a real one?
If you're uncomfortable with approving of homosexual marriages because they don't fulfill Mormon requirements for marriage, why aren't you as uncomfortable with the literally millions of marriages out there that don't?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
See the edit, see the edit, see the edit...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I did. And I edited to narrow down the question, which your edit didn't really address.
The grounds on which you oppose homosexual marriage are relevant, IMO.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Surely my marriage is no more legitimate in the eyes of a Mormon God than KarlEd's hypothetical marriage might someday be. And if you're not particularly bothered by cultural acceptance of my marriage, why might you be bothered by his?<<
Consider, Tom, the work we do for our ancestors in the Temples. Our non-Mormon ancestors are married by proxy for time and all eternity, the same way living, worthy Mormons are.
So, obviously, the Mormon god does give weight to non-mormon heterosexual marriages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Couldn't you just as easily seal homosexual marriages, assuming you really cared? If proxy sealing is possible -- if people's marriages can be turned into Mormon marriages after their deaths and without their living knowledge -- then I can only assume that divine legitimacy is a transferable value.
Edit: the only way this would NOT work, as I see it, would be if the legitimacy is contingent upon heterosexuality, divine grace being largely irrelevant to the function of gender. But if that's the case, then homosexual "marriages" are ultimately completely irrelevant -- as in "have nothing in common with, and do not intersect" -- divine marriage, and therefore divine marriage isn't even a part of the same conversation.
[ October 12, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Couldn't you just as easily seal homosexual marriages, assuming you really cared?
Sure, if there were a revelation saying we could. That's what my whole point was with this statement:
quote: I speculate on what would it mean if Mormonism (my religion) came up with a way to validate homosexual couples in the context of the Plan of Salvation.
By the way, are you assuming *I* don't care?
EDIT: If you think my 'apathy' is anything but a front. . .
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
"Our non-Mormon ancestors are married by proxy for time and all eternity, the same way living, worthy Mormons are."
Don't you mean given the option to be married by proxy? 'Cause as I understand it, that's the reason relatives of people who have chosen other religions aren't supposed to be offended by the whole baptism by proxy thing, because the soul has the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinance, when it is offered.
I don't mean this as an attack on Mormons or a complete derail of the thread, I'd just like a little clarification, please. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Don't you mean given the option to be married by proxy?
Yep, you're right.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, thanks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, But when you read the Bible the right way, it clearly shows that LDS have religion all wrong and are in fact leading people away from God based on their perversion of his teachings. It might not be legally okay to ban them from prostelytizing just because my religion teaches that they are bad for doing so, but to me allowing them to do so is conferring social approval on Mormonism, which I just can't do. So we need to ban them.
---
No one (or at least very few people) actually believes in the principle that it's ok to legislate based on religious prejudices. What they believe is that it's ok to do it based on their religious prejudices. Because, you know, when they impose their religion on others, they're right, not like when others wrongly impose a false religion on them.
This is not just an isolated fight over one issue. It's part of a confrontation with people bent on imposing their religion on other people. And the large bulk of these people really don't like the LDS. If they actually came into relatively unchecked power, at the very least they'd ban you from prostelytizing. But you'll be all right because many of the same people who are pushing against their ability to enforce their prejudice against gay right are and will fight against their religious prejudice when it's applied to you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mr. Squicky: What's the difference between your slippery slope and some of the others that have been presented in this thread? Look, I've been PAID to write science-fiction-- you think I don't know a blatant conjecture when I see one?
Let's deal with things as they are RIGHT NOW, hmm? There are enough uncomfortable moral implications in my attitude NOW, you don't have to look for what MAY happen.
quote:I'm not married. Is all of the sex I've had "pre-marital?" What if I never marry (including, if your beliefs are true, in the afterlife)? Was it still all "pre-marital?"
Is it "pre-marital" sex you oppose, Scott? Or is it all "non-marital" sex?
Let's cut through all the semantics, and just say I object to all sexual relations that don't take place between a husband and wife who love each other.
EDIT: Speaking of convoluted, that last paragraph is a doozy.
I object to all sexual relationships outside of a loving marriage (EDIT 2) between a man and a woman.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Maybe that mine isn't a slippery slope? It's an argument on reality and principle.
For one thing, there have been laws against Mormons prostelytizing both on the books and proposed. And they were opposed by groups like the ALCU who actually support Freedom of Religion as opposed to Freedom of My Religion.
Secondly, I was pointing out the inherent hypocrasy in thinking it's okay for you to impose your religious prejudices on other people while at the same time valuing the prevention of other people imposing their equally valid religious prejudices against you.
Standing up for a right or a principle is often not an easy thing to do. When you are for Freedom of Speech, it means you have to support a lot of people saying thing that you really don't agrree with. But we do this, in large part because we need to fight these fights in order to preserve these rights for everyone, especially ourselves. In this case, you don't like what what Freedom of Religion would dictate, so you abandon it. But I've little doubt that, if the bulk of people on your side of the gay marriage issue followed throuh on thier inclinations of discriminating against LDS, you'd scream bloodly murder and wrap yourself in the mantle of Religious Freedom to do so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I object to all sexual relations that don't take place between a husband and wife who love each other.
What about sexual relations between a husband and a wife who's not really all that into him?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Squicky-
My view, which may or may not be similar to Scott's, is that the proponents of gay marriage are just as surely trying to impose their morality on me as vice versa. I don't approve of same-sex unions, yet you would impose on me the requirement to recognize them based off of your morality. Just because your morality is not (necessarily) religiously derived doesn't make it any less of an imposition.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott, I appreciate your frank and open post. I hope you don't feel that you have exposed too much, and especially I hope you never feel that way from me.
I understand and appreciate where you are coming from in your post. Where I disagree is that "the onus is on the homosexual community". What you appear to have essentially said is "We religious have the divine stamp of approval on our view and that will not (cannot?) change. Those of us who have changed are rationalizing their departure from God's will. The onus is on the homosexual community to meet us on our terms." (This may not be what you intended, but it is how that part of your post parses to me. Feel free to correct me.) Do you not see how that attitude sours dialog? Do you really believe that it's up to the homosexual community to make all the concessions? If so, isn't it also a legitimate response to say, "forget the feelings of the fundamentalists, we'll see you in court." which is pretty much the state we're in today?
Here's what I see is going to happen. Society is going to become more and more accepting of diversity of sexual life-styles. Many long held traditions will fade as new traditions take hold. Society will increasingly recognize the gay community as a partner in the progress and stability of the whole. From a legal standpoint, out-dated and unnecessary restrictions on marriage and adoption will go the way of laws forbidding work on Sunday as society distills what is necessary to social stability and what is merely blind adherence to the status quo. I'm an optimist. I firmly believe this will happen. I think I have the example of history on my side.
I think what will happen is that those religions who feel the onus is on both parties to build a free society where all men can pursue happiness equally will continue to be a vital part of American life. Those that feel the onus is entirely on the homosexuals to make the effort will find themselves increasingly taking a position hostile toward homosexuals and their more tolerant neighbors and eventually against society at large.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, But you would be wrong. This is not a matter of imposing morality, but rather one of upholding rights. Recognizing that it wrong to ban someone from speaking does not confer support onto what he is saying. Recognizing that personal and religious prejudice were not valid reasons for barring interracial marriages did not carry punishments for the people who held these views, nor did it infringe on their rights.
The two sides "We should be able to impose our religion on others." and "Using the government to impose your religion on others is not permissable." are not equivilent. You may as well say that the government is imposing it's morals on the Baptists when it prevents them from banning the LDS from prostelytizing.
You are free to believe whatever morality you want. However, when you use that morality to deny other people equal rights and protection under the law, you are in the wrong.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Squicky-
My view, which may or may not be similar to Scott's, is that the proponents of gay marriage are just as surely trying to impose their morality on me as vice versa. I don't approve of same-sex unions, yet you would impose on me the requirement to recognize them based off of your morality. Just because your morality is not (necessarily) religiously derived doesn't make it any less of an imposition.
Is there any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality? The real battle here is whether the US is a "Christian" nation or a secular one. I vote secular and think that our laws should reflect secularly derived morality. In a society made up of hundreds of differing moral codes I don't think it is unreasonable to require more than "my interpretation of my God's commandments forbid this choice" before adding an idea to the common secular morality.
Repeated attempts to find secular reasons for prohibiting SSM have proved almost non-existent.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Two nit picks on your post Scott:
1) the UMC does not allow "self avowed practicing homosexuals" to be ordained. The UCC, however, does. Some American Baptist churches do too, they get away with it on the "congregational autonomy" principle.
2) A parsonage is a house (owned by the church) where a pastor lives. While I agree that you are not one, you probably meant parishioner. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Squicky-
Again, I feel you're getting very contentious, which as I said is possibly inevitable in this conversation (although Scott and Karl are doing an admirable job of avoiding it).
I said in an earlier post that I don't believe the debate is about rights, or children, or any of these other points. The argument is over social approval of the union. And in that framework I see this as two competing moralities, each trying to "impose" a definition of marriage on the other.
And, as a final note, you should work on disagreeing without being disagree-able (as should I, probably). The opening statement of your reply seems to me quite rude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Maybe that mine isn't a slippery slope? It's an argument on reality and principle.
quote:If they actually came into relatively unchecked power, at the very least they'd ban you from prostelytizing. But you'll be all right because many of the same people who are pushing against their ability to enforce their prejudice against gay right are and will fight against their religious prejudice when it's applied to you.
I think I read a similar story somewhere... Oh, yes, last month's Asimov's.
So. . . 'It's not a slippery slope 'cuz *I* said it.'
quote: I was pointing out the inherent hypocracy in thinking it's okay for you to impose your religious prejudices on other people while at the same time valuing the prevention of other peopel imposing their equally valid religious prejudices against you.
I'm well aware of how my POV may be viewed as hypocrisy. I know that many people feel the way that you do, Squicky. And I'm not particularly bothered by your opinion. From your point of view, it's a valid one.
But not in mine.
quote:What about sexual relations between a husband and a wife who's not really all that into him?
I think the deliberateness with which I crafted the wording of my opinion kind of answers this question for itself.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality? The real battle here is whether the US is a "Christian" nation or a secular one. I vote secular and think that our laws should reflect secularly derived morality. In a society made up of hundreds of differing moral codes I don't think it is unreasonable to require more than "my interpretation of my God's commandments forbid this choice" before adding an idea to the common secular morality.
No, I don't think there is any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality. Whether it's yours, mine, or ours, it's all about "imposing" a morality on a general populace.
However, I think the law base should not derive from a strictly secular moral code, but should reflect the diversity of moralities, as society is made up of the diversity of its citizens. I have no problem with a battle over gay marriage, and when it is eventually won by proponents (I'm a pessimist) I will certainly submit to that view. I have no problem with losing, I have a problem with people saying I'm wrong in basing my political beliefs off of my personal morality code just because it's religious.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BTW, Karl, I think libraries are a social construct Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, I'd be fine with your definition of the debate if it were in fact on the social approval of the union. But it's not. It is first and foremost an arguement over laws and rights. From what I can tell you (and Scott) are saying that we should deny them equal status under the law. Or am I wrong and you are against banning gay marriage but still feel that it's morally wrong?
I (and, as far as I can tell, most other gay marriage proponents) are fine with the latter position. In fact, I support your unconstrained expression of what you believe and your attempts to convince other people of it. In terms of social approval, I'm all about the marketplace of ideas. But, in the area of laws and such, I don't find "Because my god said so" a legitimate basis for an argument.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: But I've little doubt that, if the bulk of people on your side of the gay marriage issue followed throuh on thier inclinations of discriminating against LDS, you'd scream bloodly murder and wrap yourself in the mantle of Religious Freedom to do so.
Pfft, goes to show what you know. When Mormons get persecuted for REALS, we don't scream bloody murder; we leave.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Especially since my God says nothing of the kind
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When Mormons get persecuted for REALS, we don't scream bloody murder; we leave.
Well, we scream bloody murder, but no one listens, and then we leave.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think the deliberateness with which I crafted the wording of my opinion kind of answers this question for itself.
I thought that's what you were saying, but I wasn't sure. You're definitely on the side of "love before marriage," then?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott,
quote:I'm well aware of how my POV may be viewed as hypocrisy. I know that many people feel the way that you do, Squicky. And I'm not particularly bothered by your opinion. From your point of view, it's a valid one.
But not in mine.
I'd be interested in knowing how you resolve this apparent contradiction then. Could you explain?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's only a contradiction to you. I recognize that you view it as such, but do not feel that you are correct.
>>You're definitely on the side of "love before marriage," then?
Why do I feel like I'm walking into a trap, here?
I think this is pretty standard, isn't it? Am I walking around with virtual dog poo on my shoes or something?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I get that you don't see it as a contradiction. That's what I'm asking you to explain. From my perspective, it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me." which I think is pretty clearly hypocritical. I'm asking how it is that you see the situation such that this hypocrisy doesn't exist.
[ October 12, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Frighteningly, I understand that point of view. I just don't believe that it is possible to objectively arrive at that conclusion. That's why I believe God as most people envision him does not exist. That or he is the ultimate sadist. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And yes, I realize that other people ALSO view their religions as objectively true, and there's not a concrete method for proving anything. . .
BUT-- IF I feel I know the truth and yet act against it, I'm worse than a hypocrite.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Which is why I think society should seek to maintain an objective morality. People should be left free to follow whatever "higher morality" they feel is true (within certain obvious limitations) but they should have no power to force it upon others.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
KarlEd, is that possible? An objective morality? Who decides?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
As I believe mine is. I'm no pluralist either, Scott, but does your religion require you to try and enforce your religion on the citizens of a nation in which people are not supposed to be subject to the whims of this religion or that?
I'm against same-sex marriage in Judaism. Strongly. Not that it matters, because even if I thought it was a good idea, God disagrees, and that's never going to change.
But then, I'm also against idolatry, and an awful lot of variant forms of Christianity definitely qualify as idolatry according to my religion.
And Catholics. They hold that divorce is forbidden, right?
So... should they be campaigning to make divorce unrecognized by the state (if not outright forbidden by law) and people who remarry prosecutable under bigamy statures? Should I be out there trying to stone Christians for bowing down before what I see as an idol and blaspheming?
Or is it possible in your religion to say that you hold something to be objectively wrong, but recognize that living in a country that has as one of its primary principles the idea that no one should be subject to the dictates of the religious views of others means refraining from attempts to force your religious views on others?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: KarlEd, is that possible? An objective morality? Who decides?
Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society. I believe there is room in these three things for some differences in definition or degree of breach of these principles, but I think we can decide upon those, too.
The above belief is the only reason I think talking about the subject at hand (ad nauseum for some, I realize) is worthwhile.
edit to add that those big three above are by no means meant to be the only moral truths I believe are objective. There are probably many many more. I don't pretend to know them all.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Frighteningly, I understand that point of view. I just don't believe that it is possible to objectively arrive at that conclusion. That's why I believe God as most people envision him does not exist. That or he is the ultimate sadist.
It's kind of funny. I don't just understand Scott's view about that; I share it about my own religion. I know that we have God's Truth. God told us so.
There used to be such a thing as trial by combat. The basic idea was that neither side was ever going to admit to being wrong. So they'd fight, and whoever won was clearly in the right.
Nowadays, we generally look down upon such a procedure, because we know full well that wrong and evil can and does often win out, at least in the short term, over right and good.
But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?
Voting is just as bad as trial by combat, because it can't determine truth any more than a swordfight can. And the First Amendment doesn't exist to stifle religion, but rather to prevent a trial by combat in the ballot box.
I don't have any problem looking at issues from a dual perspective. I will fight within Judaism against any attempt to have same-sex marriage. I will fight in the secular realm of this country to have same-sex marriage either recognized or not, but exactly as opposite-sex marriage is recognized or not.
I'll fight within Judaism to stop Jews from opening stores on Shabbat. And I'll fight just as hard against Blue Laws that use the force of secular law to try and shut down businesses for religionus reasons.
That's not hypocrisy, Scott. It's recognizing that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?
No one has ever taken me up on the offer to armwrestle for it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
starLisa, I admire that viewpoint greatly.
I bet if the members of all religions acted that way the individual benefits and deficiencies of each would become more readily apparent.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
starLisa, I think there's some Biblical backing to what you're saying, though in the New Testament, not the Old (that I know of, though it could be there). I'm not sure where it is, but I remembering reading a distinction between holding fellow believers accountable for their actions (which I recall we were supposed to do) and holding unbelievers to the same standards (which we're not supposed to do). Maybe someone remembers where that is...it's one of Paul's letters, I think (the odds are for it, anyway, even if my memory is faulty).
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that if it comes to a vote, I won't vote on that issue. I can't be for it, but I don't know that I can be against it either. For me, it's coming down to what is the most loving thing can I do? I guess I'm just getting to the point that as Christians we've made our point. The Bible says it's wrong. No one is going to mistake us for endorsing it. So I guess I'm ready to just stand aside and go with Lisa on it.
******
KarlEd,
quote:Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society.
Why are these three things "wrong"? Don't we have to define what makes something "objectively wrong" to be able to determine what fits in that category? I agree they are wrong, absolutely, but think my basis is ultimately subjective. We can define "objectively wrong" to mean "anything that harms another person", but then where do we draw the line at 'harms'? It goes back to Asimov's three laws and his fictional logical conclusion. Or do you have a different definition for 'objective'?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The second part of what you quoted from me is one possible criteria. I think there might be more. I will think about this more and probably start a new thread about it tomorrow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society.
Why are these three things "wrong"? Don't we have to define what makes something "objectively wrong" to be able to determine what fits in that category? I agree they are wrong, absolutely, but think my basis is ultimately subjective. We can define "objectively wrong" to mean "anything that harms another person", but then where do we draw the line at 'harms'? It goes back to Asimov's three laws and his fictional logical conclusion. Or do you have a different definition for 'objective'?
Well, theoretically, let's say that there are certain things that are real axioms. Things that must be true, regardless of anyone's opinion.
And suppose there are arguments that derive from those axioms without opinion entering into it. Would those qualify as objectively true?
We (Jews) actually learn from the Bible itself that white lies to spare someone's feeling are okay. After all, God tells a white lie Himself in Genesis.
Sarah laughs and says, "I'm going to get pregnant when my husband is so old?" And God asks Abraham, "Why is Sarah laughing and saying, 'I'm going to get pregnant when I'm so old?'?" We learn that God didn't want to repeat what Sarah said accurately, because it would have hurt Abraham's feelings and/or caused strife between the two.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are other intepretations for that passage that do not have God telling a lie.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's a question on the divorce issue because I honestly don't know, and I'm curious.
If you're LDS, and you get married to someone who is also LDS, but then you have to get a divorce (let's say it's because of abuse or adultery), then what happens to the marriage within the church? I mean, Temple marriages are supposed to last for eternity, right? So what happens then?
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You apply for a breaking of the temple sealing. It takes a while, and I think it goes through the first presidency of the church.
However, once the civil divorce has gone through, the parties can remarry civilly, even if they are still sealed. A woman can't be sealed to anyone else until her previous sealing has been canceled.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
jeniwren,
quote: I guess I'm just getting to the point that as Christians we've made our point. The Bible says it's wrong. No one is going to mistake us for endorsing it.
Not all Christians. I know lots of Christians, myself included, that believe it is more in keeping with Gods will to recognize same sex marriage. Please bear in mind that there are Christian opinions all over this issue.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There are other intepretations for that passage that do not have God telling a lie.
Perhaps. But then, there are interpretations of Isaiah that suggest a virgin giving birth. I was talking about what we (Jews) learn from that verse, and said as much. We can't prevent other people from messing it up. <grin>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*puzzled* That was rude. Why did you say it?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Not all Christians. I know lots of Christians, myself included, that believe it is more in keeping with Gods will to recognize same sex marriage. Please bear in mind that there are Christian opinions all over this issue.
kmboots, forgive me, I really didn't mean *all* Christians. I know that's how it sounds, but it really wasn't what I meant. What I meant were all Christians who speak out against same sex marriage on the basis that the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. Obviously my comment doesn't apply to anyone else, since they may object on different grounds, or they don't object at all. Forgive the broad brush and thank you for pointing out how sweepingly I used it. It was unintentional.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Jeniwren. Of course, forgiven. I mentioned it only because "Christian" is coming to be understood (esp. among non-christians) as representing only a very specific part of the Christian community. The rest of us need to speak up more!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Two nit picks on your post Scott:
1) the UMC does not allow "self avowed practicing homosexuals" to be ordained. The UCC, however, does. Some American Baptist churches do too, they get away with it on the "congregational autonomy" principle.
This is an interesting rule and one that, frankly, as the Granddaughter and Niece of two United Methodist Ministers, I was surprised was not overturned at General Conference last year. I was also surprised that the rule against marrying homosexuals within the church was not overturned at that time. Frankly, I don't expect either to hold up in four years when the next General Conference is held, the UMC is too supportive of its homosexual members.
As for the above, while it is true that a homosexual can not be "out" and be ordained within the church, they can be closeted and be ordained. Also, there was a case recently where the Reverend Karen Danneman was acquited in a church trial and allowed to keep her clergy credentials despite being a self-avowed and practicing homosexual. Intereseted parties can read about it here.
While the UMC is currently still taking a stance against homosexual marriage etc within the Book of Discipline, the church is, and has been a proponent of civil rights for homosexuals for some time. The official UMC stance on civil rights for homosexuals can be found here. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was disapointed that the rule was not overturned at General Conference, but not surprised. I would be very surprised if it were overturned in 2008. I do think it will happen (or the denomination will split) but not at next Gen. Conference.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I agree that it will either be overturned or the denomination will split. Actually I think it will be overturned and the denomination will split.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
andi330 -- what makes you think the denomination will split?
I think just the opposite. I think they'll take so long to decide this that it'll finally be sort of a crisis of looking absolutely hypocritical if they DON'T do it, and everyone will pretty much agree.
The "open hearts, open minds, open doors" thing is difficult to put qualifiers on, actually. And right now, the UMC is having to do that.
What little I have learned so far about the UMC is that they are very inclusive in their decision making and there's room for open discussion and debate. The belief that people of good will can differ on these points and still remain in the same denomination pretty much permeates the denomination.
There are things that might split the UMC, but I personally don't see this issue doing it.
anyway, that's my take on it.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that the denomination will split if the change happens any time soon, say within the next 1 to 2 General Conferences. As it stands, the denomination is too split on the issue.
quote: "If there's any action taken, it will likely be an action that is more restrictive or punitive toward gay and lesbian people than is currently in the (Book of) Discipline," said the Rev. David F. McAllister-Wilson, president of United Methodist-related Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington.
David (he's a friend of the family) called it well. The church didn't tighten restrictions, but they didn't do anything about the current restrictions anyway. In 2000 the vote was 2 to 1 against, I don't know what it was in 2004 can't find the numbers.
The denomination is actually heading for a fork in the road and will soon have to decide to band together or to divide permanently. I don't think the church's policies on homosexuality is the divisive issue but it may be the final straw. Remember, it was less than 200 years ago that the Methodist Church split over slavery, and it's been less than 100 years since we managed to rejoin.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:does your religion require you to try and enforce your religion on the citizens of a nation in which people are not supposed to be subject to the whims of this religion or that?
Enforce, no. Proselyte, yes.
quote:is it possible in your religion to say that you hold something to be objectively wrong, but recognize that living in a country that has as one of its primary principles the idea that no one should be subject to the dictates of the religious views of others means refraining from attempts to force your religious views on others?
Yes-- there's been no great push in Mormonism to outlaw alcohol since Prohibition ended. Ditto with tabacco consumption. BUT-- we also are taught to vote our conscience, and to enact change that will be compatible with our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, the Church got involved with a couple propositions in California a couple years ago regarding homosexual marriage. (Prop 43? I don't remember. . . I remember Irami got torked about it, but that's about it. . .)
Mr. Squicky is wrong about my hypocrisy-- not that I'm NOT hypocritical, but he misunderstands what I'm hypocritical about. My hypocrisy? I support, for religious reasons, a ban on homosexual marriages, but completely reject, on secular grounds, the notion of prayer in schools.
Go figure.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Scott, why do you reject prayer in schools then?
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking or failing to honor one's parents? Or laws requiring giving away any extra coats you might have? These things are all more prominently mentioned in the scripture than homosexuality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking
I'm all for reinstituting the Blue laws that give all non-emergency workers a guarenteed day off once a week.
>>or failing to honor one's parents?
I'm completely in favor of strengthening parents' rights, both through social programs (parent education) and through legislation that makes it easier (or, heck, POSSIBLE) for fathers to gain sole custody of their children.
>> Or laws requiring giving away any extra coats you might have?
I believe, strongly, that the welfare programs in this country need serious funding. I believe that our society is under condemnation because we do not give sufficient aid to the poor and destitute and we ignore the needy.
>>Scott, why do you reject prayer in schools then?
I never claimed to make sense as a human being.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SO was that a yes or a no? Is that "day off" mandated for keeping the Sabbath or could it be used for yard work or football?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My response is phrased exactly the way I meant it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay...but then you haven't really responded to the question in a way that helps me to understand your reasoning.
I'll try to be more clear with the qestion in case that helps. (also, anyone else can jump in, too. This isn't meant to be a "pile on Scott" question).
You have said (i think) that you would vote against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to your religion. Are there other things that you would vote to prohibit because they are contrary to your religion?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, The idea that you don't have to follow the rules that you want everyone else to follow is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Being really sincere about thinking that you shouldn't have to follow them doesn't change that from my perspective.
From an outside perspective, there is no difference between you wanting to treat gays as second class citizens because of your religious prejudices and the Baptists wanting to treat you as a Mormon as a second class citizen because of their religious prejudices. If we accept the principle that it's okay to use the government to force your religion on others or to treat unequally because they don't follow some set of religious beliefs, without the caveat that you can't do it to ScottR, there would be nothing to stop the Baptists and oter evangelical Christian groups in their ongoing attempts to revoke the rights of you and yours.
And it's not that they're right or that it would be the best thing for society. It's just that they are stronger, just like you're only able to treat gays unequally because your side brings more might to the table than theirs does.
It is exactly to avoid the "might makes right" classification of people that our country, as a novel experiment, introduced the ideas of unbroachable equal individual rights (among them Freedom of Religion) and equality for all people before the law. These are the same things that you cherish when they protect you against the ecangelical Christian majority. But you seem perfectly willing to throw these principles away when they stand in the way of what you want. I hope you and your oft-despised minority religion never have to live with the world that would result if that attitude becomes acceptad as legitimate on a wider scale.
No one is stopping you from opposing gay marriage. No one is saying that you yourself nor your church have to support gay marriage. No one is saying that you can't express you opinions and try to convince or teach others why you feel that gay marriage is wrong.
What we are saying is that it's not legitimate to codify an inequality for some people based on your religious prejudices. It's not your place as a responsible memeber of this country who wants to enjoy the protection of these principles to do that.
There are plenty of levels of opposition here. As I've pointed out, many of the them are perfectly legitimate and acceptible. But I'm not sure why you are compelled to go this far and no further. Why aren't you compelled to say that gay people shouldn't have their vote counted equally or that people shouldn't have free speech when promoting gay issues? Why do you feel compelled to support inequality and violation of their rights in this case but not others? For that matter, if you can't live within your religion and not advocate inequality for American citizens based on that religion, why aren't you pushing for second class status for people who don't belong to your religion?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If we accept the principle that it's okay to use the government to force your religion on others or to treat unequally because they don't follow some set of religious beliefs, without the caveat that you can't do it to ScottR, there would be nothing to stop the Baptists and oter evangelical Christian groups in their ongoing attempts to revoke the rights of you and yours.
I would oppose anyone trying to establish a principle that it's okay for the government to force your religion on others. But I think you are misinterpretting the religous arguments being made to oppose same-sex marriage. Conflating this with first amendment issues is a red herring. IMO the crux of the argument is over whether all people have the implicit right to a state-sanctioned marriage with the partner of their choice. This right is not apparent in the federal constitution or in any state constitution except Massachusetts (according to the SJC). Therefore, if such a right exists, it is an implied right, analogous to the right to privacy.
The problem with that is, since there's no codification, we have to argue over whether that right exists or not. You claim it does, I claim it doesn't. You present evidence for why you think it does, which devolves to "because I say so" and I present evidence for why I don't think so, which similarly devolves to "because I say so." My view may be based on religion, versus some non-religous morality, but in the end we both are arguing from a particular dogma for the imposition of our view of rights onto someone else.
The mess that ensues when determining what are rights and what aren't is amply demonstrated over on the objective morality thread.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
A major difference, in more neutral terms, between Squick's and yours, however, is that with his resolution, your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (I know, these exist in a non-binding document) are NOT abridged in anyway, whereas in keeping the status quo, others rights are abridged (particularly pursuit of happiness), and there is no concrete evidence, IMO, that their pursuit of happiness ought to be abridged.
-Bok
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Agreed, thank you Bok. Good point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You have said (i think) that you would vote against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to your religion.
Let me clarify-- I would vote against same sex marriage because, in the long run, I think that the weight of institutionalizing it will be bad, spiritually, for the nations in which this happens.
(I think that same sex marriage will obtain civil recognition soon; I don't plan to throw a fit when it happens. I don't plan on changing my life much at all. Nothing new under the sun, and all that...)
I don't carry it any farther, Squicky, because I don't. :shrug:
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
*** I never claimed to make sense as a human being. ***
There are a lot of people on this board who have very different opinions to me and others who are more similar but many of us are very internally consistent. Which is why we like trying to understand the fundamental premise / rationality beind each other's philosophies.
Scott, if on the other hand you are not internally consistent, then pehapse say 'I feel that gay marriage is wrong' rathern than 'I think that gay marriage is wrong' as it may save some misunderstanding.
You are of course entitled to your feelings.
Personally, I think civil gay marriages are fine. Squicky and Bok covered why.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
starLisa
**** That's not hypocrisy, Scott. It's recognizing that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion. ***
I wish more people thougth like you. Well said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, I don't think that asserting that marriage is a right is a particularly strong argument, which is why I didn't rely on it. What is a right is that people be treated equally before the law.
The marriage that we're arguing over is a legal relationship that people object to extending to same sex couples because it is against their religion. From what I can see, many people, such as Scott, freely admit that this is the case and there seems to be an unwillingness or inability for others to tender and tenable reasons other than this for treeating gay people unequally before the law.
---
quote:Let me clarify-- I would vote against same sex marriage because, in the long run, I think that the weight of institutionalizing it will be bad, spiritually, for the nations in which this happens.
Are there going to be any objectively observable effects to this spiritual degredation or is it all on the non-observable plain? Because I'd be interested in knowing what the material effects you think are going to occur, if any. Also, from what I can tell, the Baptists view allowing LDS to prostyletize the same way, as a threat to the spiritual rightness of the country. I still don't see how you're explaining how your stance is anything but hypocritical.
edit: Also, even if allowing gay marriage were a threat to the spiritual integrity of the nation, I'd argue that the embracing and support of hatred, bigotry, and dishonesty that runs through the core of the anti-gay movement would be a more serious threat.
[ October 19, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking
I'm all for reinstituting the Blue laws that give all non-emergency workers a guarenteed day off once a week.
The Blue Laws didn't do that, though. They guaranteed a specific day off. Suppose that had been Wednesday, and Christians who feel they shouldn't work on Sunday were forced to work on Sunday, with the excuse given that, "Well, you have Wednesday off. What's your beef?" Because that's exactly what happened to Jews under the Blue Laws.
So you're okay with that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'd argue that the embracing and support of hatred, bigotry, and dishonesty that runs through the core of the anti-gay movement would be a more serious threat.
:shrug:
You're allowed this point of view. I don't support hatred, bigotry, or dishonesty. Neither am I particularly concerned if you (that's both general and individually directed) feel that I am.
quote:The Blue Laws didn't do that, though. They guaranteed a specific day off. Suppose that had been Wednesday, and Christians who feel they shouldn't work on Sunday were forced to work on Sunday, with the excuse given that, "Well, you have Wednesday off. What's your beef?" Because that's exactly what happened to Jews under the Blue Laws.
So you're okay with that?
I have no objection to allowing individuals to designate one regular day off per week for their own religious observances, or for whatever they want it for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I have watched this thread play out over the past days, and I have to say that I am impressed with alot of the arguements have presented on both sides. To be honest I am in the same Mormon boat as Scott and I have often thought how ought I to vote when my religious convictions believe contrary to the majority of the country.
You have asked Scott to identify what exactly would happen were the nation to allow same sex marriage. This is a less effective question as it would be at best truth that we cannot prove, at worse pure speculation.
If we must have an indication then look at the european countries, especially Scandanavia, seeing as how they have had same sex marriage available for a long time now.
I wont try to say how things are running in Europe as I am not an expert. I can't even be called a student.
Somebody made the point that Baptists think Mormon Proselyting is damaging to the moral fabric of society. 1: I have never heard that argued, 2: They are welcome to try to pass bills that accomplish their aims, we wont begrudge them that, merely vote against such measures.
I must admit it is fairly insulting that people make the arguement that our first loyalty is to fellow citizens and THEN to our God. It has been argued "but you cannot prove your perception of God is correct, therefore you cannot be 100% sure your perspective on homosexual marriage is right."
Then try this perspective.
I believe that it is the devine design of God that men and women marry and raise children, teaching them to believe in God and to keep his commandments. God designed it that way according to my beliefs. Were I to vote for a measure allowing for gay marriage I could have other men clapping me on the back and praising me for my open mindedness. But according to what I believe I would be sanctioning a lifestyle that is not consistant with God's plan as I see it. I would be supporting rebelion, I would be encouraging deviation from God's plan. I spent 2 years of my life doing nothing but trying to share the beauty and virtue that God has shared with me. How can I then be expected to vote for a law that is in opposition to those things I shared? You might as well have me admit to believing a lie for my entire life and that I have blinded the minds of my fellow man with promises of eternal marriages, and salvation forever. Well if you are right, fine I better start repairing the damage I have already done. If I am right you are asking me to damn myself.
You have asked us to prove that we are right. We say the entire earth validates our beliefs, can you prove your beliefs are correct any better than we can?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: If we must have an indication then look at the european countries, especially Scandanavia, seeing as how they have had same sex marriage available for a long time now.
I wont try to say how things are running in Europe as I am not an expert. I can't even be called a student.
Hmm...last I checked, Scandinavia was still on the map. I wonder how much more in depth scholarship is required. It seems a little odd to posit such a reasonable way to address this and then simply throw up your hands and say "well, I don't have the answer."
If you don't believe the challenge is a fair one, say so.
Edited to delete other stuff. I honestly can't stay civil at the moment and will defer my comments until such time as I can be more even handed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I must admit it is fairly insulting that people make the arguement that our first loyalty is to fellow citizens and THEN to our God.
You're going to have to cope with the idea that the rest of us might be uncomfortable hanging out with someone who's open about the fact that his first loyalty is to his invisible God, and only then to, say, his family, and only then to his fellow citizens. See, I can't see your God, and it bothers me to think that your God could tell you to kill me in my sleep and you'd say okay -- because, hey, I'm not your first priority.
I'm much, much more comfortable with people who tell me that their first priority is their own sense of morality. Because then at least there's some theoretical check on what their hypothetical "god" could tell them to do. Individual people are, in general, never as evil as people who think they're acting under orders.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
BlackBlade, I can only refer you to what I posted above. I know that my religion (Orthodox Judaism) is not only true, but that it's the only true religion. And I'm not saying that tongue in cheek. That means that I know your religion is wrong.
And yet I would fight to prevent the passage of any law that would restrict you on the basis of my religious convictions, which are, after all, what God wants from us.
That's not hypocrisy. It's a recognition that in a country with multiple religious beliefs, you either keep those beliefs out of the legal system, or you basically engage in jihad until someone wins. Or until everyone loses. And that's bad for everyone.
I know that the Torah is true, and I know that eventually, everyone on Earth will know that to be the case. Right now, it's the holiday of Sukkot. In times to come, every nation on Earth will send representatives to the Temple in Jerusalem on Sukkot to offer sacrifices to the One True God. And if they don't, they're going to find out what drought really means. Yeah, you too, BlackBlade. But for now, you really want to put down the sword and stop playing jihad games with the one country in the world where people aren't supposed to have to worry about someone else's religion being imposed on them.
And for the record, while I've heard various different takes on polygamy from various different Mormons, my take is that it's none of the government's business, and that if your religion sees it as a good thing, you should have the right to do it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You're going to have to cope with the idea that the rest of us might be uncomfortable hanging out with someone who's open about the fact that his first loyalty is to his invisible God, and only then to, say, his family, and only then to his fellow citizens. See, I can't see your God, and it bothers me to think that your God could tell you to kill me in my sleep and you'd say okay -- because, hey, I'm not your first priority.
You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Are YOU also going to just have to cope with the idea that many people in this country are uncomfortable hanging around with people who don't believe in God? After all, if you are just guided by your own sense of morality, doesn't that mean you might decide to kill any of us whenever your sense decides it would be right? That's what many people probably do think, and if we are telling everyone to just "deal with" whatever bad feelings others direct at them because of their religion, I'd be willing to bet atheists are not going to come out too well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Logically, they should. This is a responsibility that they, as keepers of an awkwardly unprovable yet universal truth, must somehow bear, as they choose to place responsibility to their fellow human beings on a level below that of responsibilities to a hypothetical and possibly imaginary creature. Only if that creature is not imaginary is this a functional viewpoint. Frankly, I muster little sympathy -- because if they're right, most of those same religions posit that they will reap rewards for their rightness far in excess of their actual suffering here on Earth. If they're wrong, see point A.
Religious people who admit that their own morality functions as a filter on the presumed commandments of God do not frighten me in this way, of course. I should make clear that anyone who, upon hearing the voice of God order them to kill me, says "No, I will not," is not included in this censure. (And lest you think this is hubristic of me, consider this: if God has ordered someone to kill me, God has apparently decided that He is my enemy. Why on Earth would I not be nervous around the chosen tools of my omnipotent enemy? And if God didn't actually order this, it's in everyone's best interest if the person disobeys. Either way, I -- as the person being killed -- have no reason to be glad of my killer's obedience.)
Edit: I want to clarify this even further, BTW. God is varelse. He is by definition (according to most Judeo-Christian religions, at least) so far above humanity that He can neither be comprehended nor communicated with. He is in fact less human than the most insane and erratic of people. Presumably, of course, He is better. And yet we know that He has sent droughts to kill complete innocents to punish kings for indiscretions; He has, if you accept Revelations, further stated His intention to kill most of the population of the planet. And we must believe that these things are for the best, lacking any observable evidence of a plan for a greater good -- and believing, in fact, that we would not be able to understand the scope of such a plan even if we were to be shown it. We must associate with people who look forward to this event, and presumably not let on that their hopeful anticipation of our death is mildly disturbing to us.
Now, I don't lie in bed trembling in fear of God's wrath. I think it's highly unlikely that the God of the Bible exists. But I know that people who do believe do exist, and moreover see ample evidence in the ancient and modern world to suggest that believers in any cause are often able to ignore their duties and obligations to humanity in favor of that cause. I regard this as one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of human society.
quote:Are YOU also going to just have to cope with the idea that many people in this country are uncomfortable hanging around with people who don't believe in God? After all, if you are just guided by your own sense of morality, doesn't that mean you might decide to kill any of us whenever your sense decides it would be right?
Yep. First difference being, of course, I can tell you at any given time why I hold the moral opinions I do, what my code of ethics includes, etc. How many religious people could, if and when they come to kill me at their god's command, let me talk to their god before the fatal stroke is dealt to see if we might come to some arrangement?
And the second difference is this: from a psychological perspective, it is a known fact that people more easily justify abomination when they believe they are acting on behalf of a higher authority. It's much harder to justify, say, putting someone into an iron maiden on your own initiative than to do it because God -- or, to take God briefly out of the equation, your boss -- told you to do it. In this scenario, an unknowable God becomes a boss who can never, under any circumstances, be held morally accountable or be directly questioned or negotiated with.
[ October 20, 2005, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm reminded of a joke:
So, a Mormon, a Jew and an atheist walk into a thread...
<makes popcorn>
<sits back comfortably>
<waits to see what happens>
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] And the second difference is this: from a psychological perspective, it is a known fact that people more easily justify abomination when they believe they are acting on behalf of a higher authority. It's much harder to justify, say, putting someone into an iron maiden on your own initiative than to do it because God -- or, to take God briefly out of the equation, your boss -- told you to do it.
I didn't know that was a known fact. Would you mind posting some references, please?
Personal experience is that those who committed the most heinous acts were atheist. But that's just personal experience.
[/derail]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I didn't know that was a known fact. Would you mind posting some references, please?
There's actually a pretty wide body of work on it. Milgram springs to mind first, of course. And while the people who may have ordered the most heinous acts in recent decades may have been officially atheist -- and I'm not necessarily conceding this, either, actually -- the people who actually performed those acts were generally not (and were, per my previous argument, acting on unquestioned commands from authority.) From my perspective, someone can order as many deaths as they want without bothering me a lick as long as the people they're ordering have the strength of mind to say "no, I will not."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- Do you also admit the benefits given to society by those acting in the name of God? Charity, art, music, etc?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, absolutely. Motivation is motivation, and certainly in the formative years of human development we needed a reason to obey a central authority; I don't think agriculture and the development of the city-state could have happened without that sort of justification.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom-- Do you also admit the benefits given to society by those acting in the name of God? Charity, art, music, etc?
Just to clarify for myself, you are submitting that followers of God also do acts of Charity, art, music, etc. You are not stating that "Charity, art, music, etc" are benefits we wouldn't have without followers of God. If my clarification is correct, I accept this, too.
quote:Tres: You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Who doesn't have to put up with being looked down upon for whatever reason? Who is immune to the negative opinions of others? Lord knows I suffer being looked down upon for who I am, even by some members of this board. Why should the religious be immune to this where it applies?
Blackblade, I was going to argue about you claim regarding "Scandinavia" since I thought the hubub about Canada and Spain recently included remarks about how they were the first to legalize gay unions. However, luckily I checked my facts and you are right (to a degree). The HRC website lists several countries with varying degrees of legalized gay unions. I had no idea how far behind the curve we really are as a nation. That said, I'd love to see you, or anyone else, really, take that list and point out the spiritual malaise each country has undergone due to its degree of recognition of homosexual unions. In fact, that's a challenge. You can even start your own thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Somebody made the point that Baptists think Mormon Proselyting is damaging to the moral fabric of society. 1: I have never heard that argued, 2: They are welcome to try to pass bills that accomplish their aims, we wont begrudge them that, merely vote against such measures.
Do you honestly think that if this were the case you'd have a chance in winning? And do you not know your LDS history? Or even American and European history for that matter?
I think that this is one of the problesm with the "Democracy = Freedom" idea that our country pushes. Democracy, on its own, merely replaces tyranny by the strong with tyranny by the majority. That's why there was and is a great conern with securing individual rights and with developing and adhering to a workable public square epistemology. To actually secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the individual and for a nation, you need to set aside rights for each person that can't be taken away by the majority and a set of guidelines for what arguments are legitimate for employing government force against the will of some of its citizens. The majority of people in a country can vote for the death of one person or a group of people (like in the Missouri Mormon Extermination Order), but, if the system is working, it would avail them nothing. They, even as a majority or a supermajority, do not have that right.
I wrote something a little while back about our country's roots in the Enlightenment. It might be useful for me to repost it here:
quote:(Just a note, I'm going to treat the Age of Reason as part of the Enlgihtenment. Of course, if you know the difference between the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, you already the stuff I'm going to talk about.)
The Enlightenment (wiki) was a movement towards reason and tolerance and away from the magical thinking, submission to authority, and inflexible parochialism that had kept Christian Europe a place of ignorance, savagery, and internicine warfare.
The first revolution was one of the system of thought. During this period, thinkers developed a way of thinking and of proof that has led our modern ideas of science and systematic scholarship.
They looked at what we actually could say we know. This was done early on by Montainge and Descartes (he of the "I think therefore I am.") and later by Hume and Kant.
One of the central characteristics of this new system of thought was its reliance on the idea of immutable, underlying laws. No longer was "Just because." or (more importantly) "Because God (or some other person in authority) said so." considered an adequate answer. The Deist (and in many cases the Christian) god was seen as a watchmaker, who set the immensely complicated but understandable universe machine in motion and was now watching it play out according to the laws that the god set in place.
This orderly conception of the universe spread into other matters, such as politics. Rulers were now expected to be able to provide valid reasons for their decisions and action instead of rely solely on their authority as they had in the past. There was increasing emphasis on the rule of law instead of the rule of the privledged (meaning "private law") person. This eventually developed into the idea of "natural rights" (or, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "inalienable rights").
The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission. The Enlightenment re-emphasized this pre-eminent focus on the individual but included the ideas of humanism, turning the picture of human history as one of a progression towards achieving the benefits of human freedom, instead of the static worlds of the communal relations then emphasized by the Catholic Church or of degraded, isolated individuals a la Luther and Calvin (and in my opinion, Ecclesiastes).
So the Enlightenment carried with it a call to revolution against those powers that opposed human freedom, namely the Church and the State, with the idea of setting up a new form of government. The ideas from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
and the Constitution:
quote:to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
were not the often-ignored platitudes that they have become. They were a declaration of a new age, a near complete break from the world that had come before. Instead of being a matter of one ruling family wresting control from another or of one religion taking over from another, this was set forth as a revolution based on ideology and dedicated towards to extending justice and liberty to all it's citizens and not just those who had the right connections or religion. There are few things in human history as profound and far-reaching as this.
The Enlightenment had at least three distinct factions, divided by geography and ideological focus. The intial Enlightenment thinkers (now excepting the Age of Reason) were French: Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert, among others). They were know as the philosphes or the Encyclopedists (as they were contributers to Diderot's Encyclopedia - itself revolutionary in the idea that people should be able to have ready access to information and that this access would destory ignorance and led to drastic social change). They were the most ideologically centered thinkers and, as the forces they opposed - Church and State - were most entrenched, they were also the most negatively oriented. Anti-clericsm was very strong in France as was the idea that the old order needed to be destroyed before the new one could be built.
The Scottish Enlightenment (wiki), (sometimes considered the English Enlightenment due to the role of John Locke and the dissident groups of England such as the Puritans) on the other hand was influenced by Scotland's status as one of the poorest country in Europe and the background of Calvinist Presbeterianism and took on a much more pragmatic and productive bent. The Scottish formed a lot of the thought that made up Utilitarianism. Also, besides the more philosophical concerns, he Scots turned to pratical applications, such as economics. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and the granddaddy of systematic capitalism, was a member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American Enlightenment was directly influenced by the Scottish one, as the Scotch did a heck of a lot of teaching. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others, were pupils of members of the Scottish Enlightenment. America was presented with the problem of unifying a divided populace with extremely different concerns and ways of approaching the world. Thus, the American Enlightenment was even more pragmatic and concerned with application than the Scottish. It's no accident that two of the main, non-Enlightenment pupils, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were men with a driving concern towards practicality. The proto-Americans were faced with the problem that Franklin expressed as "We must hang together or, assuredly, we will hang separately." This was true not just in reference to the revolution against the British, but also as to the future of the nation as a whole. The Constitution (primarily authored by James Madison and defended in the Federalist Papers by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay - see how those names come up again) achieved this by forming entrenching the Enlightenment ideas of the rule of law, liberty, and tolerance into the framework of the new nation.
---
There was plenty of Christian influence in the development of American. Judeo-Christian ethics formed the backdrop of the Revolution and the formation of the constitution. Heck, it even formed the backdrop of the French Enlightenment, which was against the Church as an institution, not necessarily the ideals of the Christian religion. However, at a time when most of the nations of Europe were "Christian" nations, America was different through the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which has as one of their effects America being much less a "Christian" nation than the countries of the old order.
When peopel talk nowadays about Americ being a "Christian" nation, they generally don't seem to understand the Enlightenment, its central role in our country's develpoment, or how while it's not contrary to religion, it does limit the legitimacy of what they want to do. They tend to want to force other people to live by their religions rules because we live in a "Christian" nation. On the other hand, however, many people seem to regard the strong anti-clericism of the French Enlightenment and the blatant and savage anti-religiousity of the French Revolution to be part and parcel of what it means to be an Enlightenment nation. They seem to want to get rid of all traces of religion and make religious people feel as if they should feel ashamed of their belief. Neither one of these is true to the spirit of the founding of our country. Neither the Christian bigotry of the Maryland Act of Toleration nor the exclusionary, positivist nonsense of Thermidor should be part of our national character.
---
Of course, since there's such astounding ignorance of the things I just wrote about, what really is true to this spirit these days?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:First difference being, of course, I can tell you at any given time why I hold the moral opinions I do, what my code of ethics includes, etc. How many religious people could, if and when they come to kill me at their god's command, let me talk to their god before the fatal stroke is dealt to see if we might come to some arrangement?
Why is it enough for you to simply explain why you hold the opinions you do, yet you ask the religious to PROVE it by letting you talk to God? You can't offer any more proof of your code of ethics than they can. And they can explain the reasons for their beliefs just as well as you. This is not a difference.
quote:And the second difference is this: from a psychological perspective, it is a known fact that people more easily justify abomination when they believe they are acting on behalf of a higher authority.
Yes, but it is also easier to do the right thing when you have an authority telling you to do it. That is a fact too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, but it is also easier to do the right thing when you have an authority telling you to do it. That is a fact too.
That's not actually true. Having a moral system dependent on external rewards and punishments or authority instructions over time leads to poor moral development and an increase in immoral behaviors (such as stealing, cheating, etc.) when not under direct supervision.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why is it enough for you to simply explain why you hold the opinions you do, yet you ask the religious to PROVE it by letting you talk to God?
For one thing, because I am the source of my ethical code. When I do something, it is because I choose to do it and believe it is right.
Presumably, somebody killing me because God has told them to do so has no strong opinion himself on whether or not I should be killed; if he did, he'd be killing me on his own initiative. If he's killing me because God said so, God's desire to make me dead is what I care about. Talking to my killer about why he wants me dead would be completely irrelevant, because the only reason he could put forward would be "God says so." So why not ask to talk to God?
(Edited to fix a pronoun.)
[ October 20, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For one thing, because I am the source of my ethical code. When I do something, it is because I choose to do it and believe it is right.
Isn't that still the same thing basically? You do something because you believe it is right. Religious people are doing things because they believe it is right. The religious would have a strong opinion himself based upon what he believes his God told him to do. Just like you have a strong opinion to not want to be killed based upon your own personal moral convictions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Isn't that still the same thing basically? You do something because you believe it is right.
No. They do something because God told them to do it, and they believe that doing what God tells them to do is right. It's one step removed, and that's an important step.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yesterday my sweet mother-in-law sent me a junk mail. It was the story of how the daughter of a great religious evangelical who's name slips my mind, was asked on Television why God allows bad things to happen, like 911. She explains, in the e-mail, that it is because we have asked God to leave our life, our schools, our politics and our places of business. God, being a polite being, did as he was asked, allowing bad things to happen.
The e-mail was about 20% factual, and 80% added criticisms and fire&brimstone styled religious conservative hyperbole.
I responded back to her, and to everyone else on her junk list that I could find, "Its sad. The terrorists who murdered all those thousands of innocent people, and the crimminals and sadist who directed them, have but one goal as well. They too, want to return their God to our schools, places of work, and public life."
The biggest problem I have with people arguing that their religious morality is better than secular morality, is that there are a bunch of other people with differing religious moralities who want the same thing.
Secular thought was not created out of anti-Christian hate mongers. It was created as a way for people of different sects to be able to live together in the same world. One Christian may believe that the bible makes homosexuality a sin. Another, taking the same bible, believes it is not. So, besides throwing bible verses at each other, how do we create a society with both of these Christian sects in it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dan, that was wonderful.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:For one thing, because I am the source of my ethical code. When I do something, it is because I choose to do it and believe it is right.
This contradicts your earlier claim that you can explain why you hold the moral opinions you do. If there are reasons for your belief, then those reasons are the source of your ethical code, not you - at least, it is if you are going to claim that someone whose reason is God is not the source of his own belief.
quote:They do something because God told them to do it, and they believe that doing what God tells them to do is right. It's one step removed, and that's an important step.
And you do X because reason Y tells you it is right (unless, of course, you have no reason at all for your beliefs). That is just as much one step removed - whether that reason Y is God, some other person, some assumption you've decided to accept, or some argument you think is valid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If there are reasons for your belief, then those reasons are the source of your ethical code, not you - at least, it is if you are going to claim that someone whose reason is God is not the source of his own belief.
Except that God is not a reason, Tres. God is the source of the reason.
In other words, I have my own reasons for behaving a given way, reasons I can explain to you and even reconsider. Someone who does something because God has ordered them has the order as their reason, and God then becomes the person with the reasons. In this scenario, any complaint should be addressed to God, as He's the person with the reasons.
There's a difference, I submit, between doing X because Reason Y makes X a logical necessity, and doing X because Individual B has a Reason Y. In fact, I don't have to submit this; as I've said before, there's a fairly substantial body of work on this very issue. Doing things because you've been ordered to do them is significantly easier than doing things because you've concluded that they should be done. It even engages different physical parts of the brain.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
It's Revalation singular. John only had one vision. It just took lots of words to write it down.
Just a pet peeve.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Tres said
quote: Yes, but it is also easier to do the right thing when you have an authority telling you to do it. That is a fact too.
I know it was mentioned, but in case anyone didn't know - Milgram
Just to clarify for those who have not heard of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It's Revalation singular.
Um. Almost.
Let me cite Davidson's Rule: Any post which is solely submitted in order to point out the typos or grammar errors of a previous post is highly likely to contain an error of similar nature.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Someone who does something because God has ordered them has the order as their reason
...hence that someone has a reason! And thus someone who does something because God said so is also a person with reasons for their moral opinions.
quote:There's a difference, I submit, between doing X because Reason Y makes X a logical necessity, and doing X because Individual B has a Reason Y.
The difference is that the latter is a subcategory of the former. "Because Individual B has a Reason Z for X" is a Reason Y, and if Individual B is infallible then that Reason Y would make X a logical necessity.
You are trying to count some reasons as reasons but not others. This is not correct. Even if you don't think certain reasons are good reasons, or even if it is "significantly easier" to follow certain reasons than others, that does not make those reasons cease to be reasons. People who follow God's will have reasons that they can explain just as you do - those reasons just often happen to invoke an argument by authority, a different sort of reason, but a reason nonetheless.
And although you can say following that sort of reason is easier, I think it would be difficult to say that reasoning in that way is less effective than whatever other sort of reasons you are thinking of. That's because it's very hard to find trustworthy assumptions from which to base your reasoning, other than authorities. Usually, instead of God, the authority becomes some sorts of rules (like Utilitarianism) or your own personal subjective feelings.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:laughs at Tom's double post, which he will probably have edited by the time this post posts:
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: It's Revalation singular.
Shouldn't that be Revaluation? Or Revolution? Or maybe Revelation?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Thank you, Treason! I was waiting for someone to link to that.
-pH
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Welcome. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You are trying to count some reasons as reasons but not others. This is not correct.
No, it IS correct. Specifically, I am saying that doing something because someone told you to do it is -- both logically, emotionally, and scientifically -- different from doing it because you have a reason.
This isn't even disputed by modern psychology, Tres. The mechanism for obedience is completely different from the mechanism for rational thought. Where you're welcome to disagree with me is my assumption that this is inferior to the other approach.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What does modern psychology or the meachanism for obedience have to do with whether or not obedience is a reason with which things can be justified?
A reason is a reason, as long as the rightness of the act you are justifying follows from acceptance of that reason. If X follows from Y, and you believe Y, then Y is a reason for X. It doesn't matter if Y is "because God said X is good" or "because studies have shown X decreases crime" or "because I have a feeling X is good." All three of these entail different "mechanisms" but they are still all reasons, meaning it is still incorrect to count some as reasons but not others.
It is not difficult to paint any given belief as totally irrational if you start deciding which reasons count as real reasons, and which do not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What does modern psychology or the meachanism for obedience have to do with whether or not obedience is a reason with which things can be justified?
Because I believe that some reasons are significantly superior to others, particularly when it comes to offering actual justification for behavior -- but also when it comes to producing correct behavior. There is an enormous functional, social, and biological difference between doing something because you were told to do it and doing something because you have concluded that it is right. Do you understand this distinction?
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Perhaps a point of clarification is needed. Ultimately it boils down to responsibility. A person who is acting on their own, by their own reasons usually has no choice but to accept full responsibility.
A person acting under orders ( or commandments etc ) is able to blame the other party. The responsibility shifts from the individual committing the action to the entity requesting that the act be done.
At the fatal moment in which an act can not be reversed i.e. pulling the trigger of a gun, an individual acting on their own will be able to say to themselves, no I will not do this it is wrong. However, on the other side of the coin if one is acting from an order they have to say no I will not listen to the order ( or whatever ) but this step requires that they significantly battle within themselves something entirely different ( potentially being or becoming a target of the other entities ill wishes ) furthermore since they can say oh it's not my fault it makes it much more likely that they can go through with the act, unfortunately.
Lastly, interpretation "always" leaves room for error. Generally one can very clearly understand their own personal motivations. Trying to interpret what something else wants, demands, or asks is a risky proposition.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because I believe that some reasons are significantly superior to others, particularly when it comes to offering actual justification for behavior -- but also when it comes to producing correct behavior.
Yes, some reasons are better than others. But that doesn't mean the lesser reasons are not really reasons for those who believe them. You claimed that you can give reasons for your moral opinions, while the religious cannot. That's not a claim about whose reasons are better - that's a claim that the religious don't even really have ANY reasons at all, and that is the claim I'm refuting.
quote:There is an enormous functional, social, and biological difference between doing something because you were told to do it and doing something because you have concluded that it is right. Do you understand this distinction?
I understand the distinction in this way: Doing something because you were told to do it is one particular way of doing something because you have concluded it is right. The former is a type of the latter.
If you are doing something because you have been told to do it, then I think this necessarily implies you have come to the conclusion that it is right. However, the reverse is not true - if you come to the conclusion that something is right, it is not necessarily true that this is because you have been told to do it.
This is not really a functional, social, or biological difference though. Rather, the functional, social, and biological differences exist between types of reasons - such as differences between authority-based reasons, observation-based reasons, logic-based reasons, aesthetic-based reasons, etc. But reasoning itself (concluding something is right) is an umbrella that includes all of these functionally, socially, and biologically distinct ways of determining right from wrong.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Tres- "If you are doing something because you have been told to do it, then this necessarily implies you have come to the conclusion that it is right. "
I point to the Milgram link above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You claimed that you can give reasons for your moral opinions, while the religious cannot.
Specifically, I claimed that I can provide primary justification for my moral opinions, while "the religious" cannot. Their moral opinions are second-hand.
quote: If you are doing something because you have been told to do it, then I think this necessarily implies you have come to the conclusion that it is right.
And here I refer again to the numerous studies which indicate that this is not true. There is a physical difference in brain mechanics between the thought processes for obedience and the thought processes for rationalization. This physical difference expresses itself in distinctly different -- and predictable -- behaviors under the two conditions, even for the same decision. People do things differently when they are told to do them than when they have reached the decision independently.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Unrelated to what is being discussed now (sort of) I found a much better Milgram link. here
Also, I agree with Tom and this happens to be one of the main problems I have with religion in general.
I don't think anyone's mind will be changed now though. Seems pointless to keep arguing the same thing over and over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Having a moral system dependent on external rewards and punishments or authority instructions over time leads to poor moral development and an increase in immoral behaviors (such as stealing, cheating, etc.) when not under direct supervision.
It's interesting you'd say this, Mr. Squicky, because it appears at least to contradict your statement.
I mean, religious people (mostly) believee they are always under supervision. Or Supervision, if you will. G-d is watching. Jesus is always with you. The Spirit is always with you. Karma cannot be tricked. Etc.
But your statement implies that religious people are more likely to committ moral error when not under direct supervision, even though they believe they're under Supervision every moment?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:No. They do something because God told them to do it, and they believe that doing what God tells them to do is right. It's one step removed, and that's an important step.
I think you're misstating the relationship many religious people have with G-d.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am sitting here giving myself a headache because I'm on the verge of an epiphany, or a chunck of stupidity, and I can't quite put it in words yet.
However, it goes something like this:
Those who argue that a religious based morality is prefered seem to be saying that without a strict guideline of right and wrong, people will have to decide on their own, and will simply rationalize as right anything they do that is wrong, but beneficial to themselves.
Since people are imperfect they will be unable to match the perfection of divinely inspired morality.
However, there is a smorgasbord of those that claim divinely inspired moralities out there. Since people are imperfect won't they have a tendency to choose the wrong divinely inspired morality? To say the bible is your rock from which you will not stray meand that for some reason you chose that rock. This could have been either divinely inspired, or due to a set of reasons to many to go into here.
The only thing that I know for sure is that I have read the bible, bits of the Koran, and bits of other religious texts from around the world. No divine inspiration has directed me to choose any one over the other, nor any interpretation of one over the interpretations of others.
So what can I rely on other than my judgement and logic?
You say that God tells you homosexuality is bad, so you are agains SSM. In truth, unless you are getting personal divine conversations, you are saying that your biblical studies, or the biblical studies of those you believe as true experts, say that homosexuality is bad--and so is SSM. How are those experts, or your own studies, any freer from rationalizations and human imperfections than my own beliefs on the subject, which are not biblically or religiously centered?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But your statement implies that religious people are more likely to committ moral error when not under direct supervision, even though they believe they're under Supervision every moment?
I submit that even the most religious person occasionally forgets that God is Watching (tm).
quote:I think you're misstating the relationship many religious people have with G-d.
There's a reason I put "the religious" in quotes, Jeff. If you read my earlier posts, you'll notice that I specify a very narrow population, indeed, as target of my observation. Religious people who would NOT kill me even if they thought God told them to do so are completely exempt from this complaint.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I noticed that, Tom. I should've been more specific, that's my mistake. I was speaking more to your tone, which implied (necessarily, I realize, since those are the people you're talking about) that you're always around such people, that they're everywhere.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:If you are doing something because you have been told to do it, then I think this necessarily implies you have come to the conclusion that it is right.
And here I refer again to the numerous studies which indicate that this is not true. There is a physical difference in brain mechanics between the thought processes for obedience and the thought processes for rationalization. This physical difference expresses itself in distinctly different -- and predictable -- behaviors under the two conditions, even for the same decision. People do things differently when they are told to do them than when they have reached the decision independently.
How does this prove that doing something because you were told to do it does not necessarily imply you concluded it was right? All it proves is that the method through which they reached their conclusion is different in those different cases. Just because obedience is a different sort of reason for doing something, that entails different sorts of physical responses in a person, does not mean that it ceases being a reason, or a "primary justification" for the thing being justified. Someone who obeys authority still reaches the conclusion to do so themselves, even if there is a different mechanism involved.
Similarly, in the Milgram experiment, the "teacher" has concluded it is right to keep shocking the "student". The case is interesting because there are two reasons in conflict - one reason is that the experimenter should be obeyed, versus the other reason that stems from the knowledge that hurting someone severely is wrong. The experiment illustrates that people are naturally inclined to place more weight on the need to obey than on the logic stemming from their own value system. It may be that this bias is a physical one, based in the way the brain is designed. However, why does any of that suggest the teacher did not ultimately conclude he was doing the right thing by obeying? Even if consciously he was telling himself he should not be coming to that conclusion, he did come to that conclusion, because he kept obeying. And if asked why he did it, I would bet he would state right of the bat it was because the experimenter told him to, and because he had to obey. That is a reason and I would think a "primary justification" for his action.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: How does this prove that doing something because you were told to do it does not necessarily imply you concluded it was right?
Because doing something because you were told to do it precludes the possibility of doing it because you concluded it was right. If the first applies, the second cannot apply -- not least because, presumably, the second would take precedence over the first if it occurred.
quote: However, why does any of that suggest the teacher did not ultimately conclude he was doing the right thing by obeying?
Believe it or not, this concern was actually addressed. And in almost all cases, the "teacher" did not in fact reach that conclusion.
quote: And if asked why he did it, I would bet he would state right of the bat it was because the experimenter told him to, and because he had to obey. That is a reason and I would think a "primary justification"
You're using a definition of "reason" that I think is preventing you from understanding my point, Tres. If by "reason" you mean "cause of an effect," then everything has a reason.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because doing something because you were told to do it precludes the possibility of doing it because you concluded it was right. If the first applies, the second cannot apply -- not least because, presumably, the second would take precedence over the first if it occurred.
You are simply stating this as if it is fact, but I've been saying the exact opposite is true: Doing something because you were told to do it implies you concluded it was right. You would have concluded it was right because someone you trust told you to do it - the two are not mutually excluse.
If you had not concluded it was right, why would you have chosen to do it? Shouldn't that be the ultimate test of what you have concluded is right - what you decide to do? If you say something is right but then go ahead and do something else, you probably haven't really concluded it's right.
If not by their actions, how would you determine what one actually has concluded is right when one's actions are inconsistent with one's claims about right and wrong?
quote:You're using a definition of "reason" that I think is preventing you from understanding my point, Tres. If by "reason" you mean "cause of an effect," then everything has a reason.
No, by "reason" I mean that which justifies choosing to do a given act in a given person's mind.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
This thread was here at the right time, I'm using just the links listed, as the startings of research for an exploratory paper (in an english comp class)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You are simply stating this as if it is fact, but I've been saying the exact opposite is true: Doing something because you were told to do it implies you concluded it was right.
And I'm telling you that you are absolutely wrong, and that study after study indicates that you are wrong. That, in fact, there are measurable biological and psychological distinctions between these two things. This is not something that is even argued among psychologists, as I understand it.
quote: If you say something is right but then go ahead and do something else, you probably haven't really concluded it's right.
You appear to believe that people only do those things they have concluded they should do. What's interesting about the obedience mechanism is that it actually bypasses this step, which is precisely why it's dangerous.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And I'm telling you that you are absolutely wrong, and that study after study indicates that you are wrong. That, in fact, there are measurable biological and psychological distinctions between these two things. This is not something that is even argued among psychologists, as I understand it.
Except that those studies don't show what you keep claiming they show. They show only that there are different methods of concluding things, not that one method counts as concluding while the other does not.
And it is not surprising that psychologists don't argue about this much, because it is a question that is beyond the scope of any sort of scientific psychology. It is a question of the nature of reasoning. I think modern psychology tends to stay away from issues of that sort.
quote:You appear to believe that people only do those things they have concluded they should do. What's interesting about the obedience mechanism is that it actually bypasses this step, which is precisely why it's dangerous.
How does it even make sense to say one could bypass this step? Again, what other test is there for what a person has concluded is right, beyond looking at what they have chosen to do?
The only way I can see that it would make sense to say that you have not concluded you should do something, and yet you are doing it anyway, would be if you were physically unable to do otherwise. And if you were physically unable to do otherwise, you haven't really chosen to do it. Your body has simply forced you to do it, making your beliefs irrelevant. But when a religious person obeys the Bible, it is not at all accurate to claim they are physically unable to do otherwise if they wanted to. It would be a great shirking of their responsibility to say anything other than that they are choosing to act according to God's law by their own free will.
So the question still is this: If they they are choosing to do it by their own free will, why would they be choosing to do it, other than because they've concluded it is the right thing to do?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Father: "What made you think it was okay for you to be out walking the dog at this hour?"
Daughter: "Mom told me to do it."
Are you sure you want to say that the Daughter's answer here isn't really any reason at all? Should the Father demand a 'real' reason?
It seems to me that it's rational for a daughter to conclude she should walk the dog when her mom tells her to, regardless of what brain processes lead her to draw that inference. And it would be quite unfair of the father to claim that isn't a real reason at all and that the daughter was acting totally irrationally, just as it is unfair of you to claim following God's will isn't a real reason that the religious can use to guide their actions.
[ October 23, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Are you sure you want to say that the Daughter's answer here isn't really any reason at all? Should the Father demand a 'real' reason?
Let's up the ante a bit and try this one on:
"What made you think it was okay to torture that man?" "The general told me to do it."
------
The reason these don't feel equivalent -- even though they are -- is that the obedience mechanism is just fine for "little" things. We don't particularly mind when a daughter does a chore because her parents told her to do the chore, not because she thought the chore needed doing; a father in that situation, wanting to preserve that kind of automatic obedience, would be very unlikely to question it. Parents go to great lengths, in fact, to instill that sort of obedience.
I used the army in my later example because they're also an organization that goes to great lengths to install obedience mechanisms -- for much the same reason. You don't want soldiers to stop to think "should I shoot this man," when stopping to ask that question might result in being shot themselves. You want them to shoot the person you tell them to shoot -- or charge into the hail of fire -- on command, and take on faith that what you're doing is for the greater good.
But this is not rationalization. This is not even rational thought, per se. It is a mechanism that is deliberately cultivated to bypass rational thought. And like all mental mechanisms, it can be useful in limited situations. But -- as with my torture example -- it can backfire. Consider the effect of this sort of obedience on your "walking the dog" example; what if the girl was walking the dog when a rapist suddenly ran after her, and she just kept walking the dog anyway, because she'd been told to do it? Luckily, most kids aren't that obedient to their parents. More relevantly, the instinct we share for self-preservation tends to override the obedience mechanism in most cases, which is why it's easier to order someone to kill somebody else than it is to order them to die.
If you're really hung up on the word "reason," fine; feel free to call acting out of obedience a "reason," however pathetic. It is NOT, however, a rational behavior -- which is what I suspect bothers you in the first place.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The reason these don't feel equivalent -- even though they are -- is that the obedience mechanism is just fine for "little" things.
"Why don't we just pass a law to require prayer in schools?" "Because the Constitution says we can't."
"Why don't we torture terrorists?" "Because the Geneva Convention tells us not to."
"Why didn't Tommy eat the poison berry?" "Because his Mommy told him not to."
"Why didn't you torture that man?" "Because the Bible says to love your neighbor."
There are many cases where obedience works well for "big" things. The usefulness of obedience has nothing to do with how "big" or "little" the importance of something is. It has to do with how well we can judge the situation on our own. Little kids don't judge well, so it is better for them to follow rules of obedience, rather than use more complicated reasoning to try and deduce what to do. Adults are equally inept at judging in many cases - cases where morality is very tricky or where things are going on that are larger than can be seen by the individual.
quote:But this is not rationalization. This is not even rational thought, per se. It is a mechanism that is deliberately cultivated to bypass rational thought.
It may or may not be a conscious thought. Rational behavior of all sorts can go on a level below conscious thought - like when someone spots a crime and, without stopping to think about it, realizes it is wrong. In such a case, rational deduction of some sort is going on, even though the person might not even be aware of it. Similarly, sometimes obedience involves a thought and sometimes it does not. I've frequently thought "so-and-so told me not to do this, so I should not." In cases like that, obedience does involved conscious thought. But in other cases it might be more automatic.
Either way, though, obedience is still rational, because it is based on a valid deduction. X is right, X says I should do Y, therefore I should do Y. This is a valid, rational argument. Whether you actually think this, or whether the that processing is simply built into your brain, that rational argument is still the basis of any sort of obedience. Of course, like any attempt at rationality, things can go awry if your assumptions are mistaken. Who knows how your mind has come to the conclusion that so-and-so can be trusted to be right? But it is still reasoning, even if the assumptions involved result in the conclusion being flawed.
Rationality allows for the existence of rules - whether this be "X is always the right act" or whether it be "It is always right to obey what Y says." From such rules you can rationally deduce what act to do. And the reason such rules may be necessary is because of our lack of judgement when it comes to individual situations. Human Beings often judge very poorly in certain situations. As a result we have rules, traditions, and authorities to tell us what to do. If these are situations where following the rule or authority is more often going to lead to better results than our individual judgement, then it is rational to follow the rule or authority.
And again, yes, this may not all be consciously thought out by the person following the rule or authority. The classic shock therapy is an example of how one can come to reason using a rule that one is not conscious of. If you shock someone everytime they drink a beer, they will conclude they should not drink beer, even if they latter have no idea why they are thinking that. I'd argue that this behavior is still rational because, even though it might be subconscious, it is still based on a logical argument stemming from a rule based in repeated observation.
I think this distinction is very important, particularly in politics, where ethical decisions must be made. Liberalism, in particular, makes a habit of assuming human reasoning should be entitled to reject any and all tradition or authorities. This, I think, is a mistake. The reasoning of the majority is often overly simplistic and short-sighted. If it seems to the average Joe that Nazis should not be allowed to have free speech, they will judge that we should ban pro-Nazi speech. It will often not occur to them what other things this might end up causing in the far long run. As a result we have set up authorities, such as the Constitution, to protect us against the faulty reasoning of individuals.
Yes, the Consitution is an authority that we obey in the same way many obey God.
But there are other authorities that we have too, for the same reason. God and the Bible are one of them. In the modern era people tend to be willing to reject these authorities because they seem wrong. They forget that it is still rational to place trust in an authority when trusting the authority will result more often in the right answer than attempting to judge things for oneself. And then they pass mistaken laws accordingly.
This is why I am hung up on considering appeals to authority as rational behavior. There are many "big" issues where I simply do not trust individual human judgement as much as I do authorities. (And, of course, there are other situations where the reverse is true.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Either way, though, obedience is still rational, because it is based on a valid deduction. X is right, X says I should do Y, therefore I should do Y.
Tres, it's really difficult to have this conversation with you until you read some more literature on the topic. Comparing the Constitution to God, for example, is flawed on a number of levels; at best, it can be compared to the Bible -- and, indeed, that would be a valid analogy.
quote: This is why I am hung up on considering appeals to authority as rational behavior.
The thing is, even under the most charitable interpretation, it's an abandonment of responsibility. "I do not understand this," the logic goes, "so I will listen to this person whom I believe does." And it's precisely that process which makes it easier to countenance atrocity.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Father: "What made you think it was okay for you to be out walking the dog at this hour?"
Daughter: "Mom told me to do it."
Are you sure you want to say that the Daughter's answer here isn't really any reason at all? Should the Father demand a 'real' reason?
Excellent as comrade TomD's points are, it seems to me that there is a further difference here : The daughter can readily point to her mother, and ask "Mom, why did you want me to walk the dog?" It is an unusual god for which this is possible.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, it's really difficult to have this conversation with you until you read some more literature on the topic.
As a matter of fact, I have read some literature on this topic, including the psychological experiments you've been referring to. I'll also point you to Chapter 3 of Between Past And Future by Hannah Arendt ("What Is Authority?"), which is a pretty good analysis of authority and obedience.
quote:The thing is, even under the most charitable interpretation, it's an abandonment of responsibility. "I do not understand this," the logic goes, "so I will listen to this person whom I believe does."
Well, I am sure people naturally view it is an abandonment of responsibility, but I don't think it actually is. When you chose to obey someone, it is still your choice to obey. In a sense, by doing this, you are only shifting the thing you are judging - you are trusting your judgement of who to trust more than your judgement of what to do. If you fail to pick the right authority to obey, it's still your judgement's fault, one way or another.
Regardless, whether that constitutes an abandonment of responsbility or not, it can still be the rational thing to do. If you truly don't understand something, shouldn't you trust someone who you think does?
quote:The daughter can readily point to her mother, and ask "Mom, why did you want me to walk the dog?" It is an unusual god for which this is possible.
Well, yes. In truth the authority that religious people are directly trusting is not God. They are trusting the Bible or their church - trusting that those come from God, who they in turn trust. This is a more dangerous chain of reasoning, but it still follows the same general idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Regardless, whether that constitutes an abandonment of responsbility or not, it can still be the rational thing to do. If you truly don't understand something, shouldn't you trust someone who you think does?
Absolutely. But -- and here's the kicker -- the actions produced by that decision to trust are by any useful definition not rational. When you abdicate your responsibility for decision-making to someone else and agree to abide by their decisions, you are no longer making individual decisions; you are abiding by the consequences of a previous decision, and no longer individually examining each future decision on its merits.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think that is correct. Abiding by the consequences of a previous decision IS a method of individually evaluating each future decision. You aren't weighing the future decision solely on its own merits, but you are still evaluating it using a process that follows valid logic. This is rational because, as long as you still trust that your original decision was correct, it would follow that doing this should give you what you'd expect to be the correct answer for each future decision. (Whether this is responsible or not would be another issue.)
I think a useful definition of rationality should include decision-making in which the ultimate decision follows from the premises you think you have further reason to believe are true. This is a case of that.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)