Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
\\The offer was brought up to have exactly that, only to refer to it (in their case) as a “civil union” instead of “marriage”. They would have everything they wanted … except the name. They turned it down.\\
Can you blame them? Read the text of the marriage amendment. If if it passes, the civil unions would be worthless in terms of legal rights, benefits and protections.
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm
Bill Mulligan: Eyewitnesses are not valid evidence? Then there are many men in jail who must be wondering WTF.
Luigi Novi: No, eyewitness accounts are not valid evidence. Eyewitness accounts, while thought of by the general public as the best kind, is actually not. Eyewitnesses can easily be wrong, and while people may be convicted of crimes on it, it
Actually, what should have been said is that there is no PHYSICAL evidence of the existence of God. Which there isn’t.
I consider myself an agnostic. Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven. I live my life as if there is no God, but that doesn’t mean he’s been disproven. In a case of the supernatural, I believe that the burden of proof belongs on those trying to prove that the supernatural exists. That said, we need to be tolerant of each other’s beliefs (or disbeliefs). Some people here need to pull it back a notch, you seem to be stepping over the line into rudeness. Please.
Luigi Novi: No, eyewitness accounts are not valid evidence. Eyewitness accounts, while thought of by the general public as the best kind, is actually not. Eyewitnesses can easily be wrong, and while people may be convicted of crimes on it, it
>Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.
So … it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distance relative?
>Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.
So … it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distant relative?
// It IS, however, evidence. That’s all I’m saying. Not trying to convert anyone from the One True Path or anything. //
Not in the scientific sense, it isn’t.
// Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven. I live my life as if there is no God, but that doesn’t mean he’s been disproven. //
Atheism is a belief sure, but then again the idea that the sky is blue and the grass is green is also a belief, so what. What Atheism isn’t, is a religion, despite the efforts of some to classify it as such. It also requires no faith to be an atheist any more then it requires faith to see that the grass is green or the sky is blue. To believe in something because it can’t be disproven is, to my mind, silly. There are tons of things that can’t be proven or disproven, ghost, aliens visiting the earth, bigfoot, Elvis being alive, people with superpowers, dogs who can talk, cows that can fly. Are all of the things possible, sure, but until I’m given evidence that doesn’t mean I believe in them. The same is true of Gods. Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren’t. It’s basically going “I don’t believe, but hey you could be right”. In my mind you can be an atheist and say the same thing, so why we need a seperate term is, frankly, beyond me. To my way of thinking acknowledging the possiblity of a God is simply being tolerant of others beliefs. I was raised Catholic, (before I came to the adult conclusion that it was all a bunch of hooy), growing up I would have never dreamed of walking up to a Jew or a Muslim and telling them “I was right and you were wrong”. That’s tolerance. You don’t have to beleive in any God to practice the same thing, and doing so doesn’t mean we have to call it something else.
// >Luigi Novi: Thank you. So in other words, the citizens pay for it through taxes. Hence, discrimination of that kind is wrong. Little wonder that the court upheld that decision.
So … it would be OK if the schools were funded exclusively from donations at the Sunday collection plates? Or by a local priest who happened to inherit a bundle from some distance relative? //
From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn’t be right.
// I’m WAY sorry I got into this whole thing but, stupidly, now I can’t stop. There is a big difference between saying that eyewitnesses are not the best kind of evidence–no argument there, which is why I never said it–and saying that this makes them INVALID. And I won’t keep belaboring the point but if they are invalid then they would not be admissible. Which they are. //
Once again you’re confusing a legal standard with scientific standards. From a legal standpoint God could probably be proven, but then again from a legal standpoint OJ was innocent and so were the cops who beat Rodney King. Science is a much harsher mistress then the law. An eyewitness account in science means nothing unless it can be verified. There hasn’t been a single eyewitness account to the almightly existance that can be verified, hence no proof.
// Obviously, I disagree. Had he said there is no convincing evidence of God I would have no argument, since “convincing” is in the eye of the beholder. //
Once again, not according to the scientific method.
// There is a world of difference between saying there is no convincing reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster and saying there is no evidence of same. //
There is no evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, the various “blurry” photographs over the years have all been disproven by experts. Once again it comes down to a few eyewitnesses and no one being able to verify what they saw.
// And I would argue that there IS evidence that UFOs may be alien craft //
No there isn’t. And I don’t say this with a lack of knowledge. UFO’s are somewhat of a facination for me. My bookshelf is filled with books on them, (as well as alien abductions, Men in Black, ect.). Hëll I was even once convinced that I was being abducted by aliens. Years of reading, studying, and even talking to some who’ve encountered them, have lead me to the conclusion that there’s no proof of anything alien there. Everything, (and I mean everything, including my own “abduction” experiences) that people claim to have seen is explainable by other means, (both natural and man made). In my own “abduction” case I was suffering from a sleeping disorder.
// Darren compared the evidence for God with the evidence for Bigfoot and UFO’s. Since the evidence for Bigfoot and UFOs is actually pretty good I don’t think it made the point he wanted.//
You must be working from a different definition of “pretty good” then any I’m aware of. Evidence for both Bigfoot and UFO’s is not only really poor, it’s practactly non existant. Most of the evidence people cling to has been repeatably discredited by respectable scientist and experts.
Johnny Bravo,
So you believe in New Testament God, and your in-laws believe in Old Testament God?
Make you wondered how the church decided to come up with a “New” Testament so different from what’s presented in the old…
Darren,
Had you inserted the word “scientific” into “”There is not a single bit of evidence that God, (any God) exist. None, nada, zilch.” I never would have said a word and we’d both probably be happier.
Hey, it’s one thing to pick on God but let’s leave Bigfoot alone.
“Evidence for both Bigfoot and UFO’s is not only really poor, it’s practactly non existant. Most of the evidence people cling to has been repeatably discredited by respectable scientist and experts.”
What evidence for Bigfoot has been discredited? As we’ve belabored, eyewitness accounts are difficult to prove or disprove. They are, however, the piece of evidence that virtually all discoveries of animals begin with. The biggest news in primate science (other than the discovery of the “hobbit” skeletons) are the sightings of an unusual group of what are either chimp like gorillas or gorilla like chimps in Africa. Nobody has a dead body yet but there is little skepticism about their existence (whether they are a new species, a subspecies or a genuine chimp/gorilla hybrid is the big question. I’d lean toward gorilla subspecies.)
That an unknown group of gorillas could survive undetected in Africa is, of course, cause for delight.
Back to Bigfoot. Why is such a creature so unlikely? There is nothing fantastic about its description and such creatures did once exist. The same could be said about Apatasaurus of course but unlike our dinosaur friend, a large primate could conceivably live undetected in the woods. The problem, and I admit it’s a big one, is that it is hard to believe that a large animal could live undetected in the most industrialized country on earth without someone seeing it. (but then, people DO say they see it).
Evidence? Scat, hair, voice recordings, photos, films, tracks, lots and lots of tracks. Pretty much all the evidence I ever had that my home town has bears, up until last year when I ran into one in my sisters backyard. (Incidentally, in answer to the old question, yes, bears DO šhìŧ in the woods. Also, humans šhìŧ in their pants when running into said bear.)
Proof? No, not until we kill or capture one or find a carcass. There are alternate explanations for each piece of evidence. The footprints may be brilliant hoaxes. The eyewitnesses might have seen a bear. The unidentified hair samples are just that–unidentified, not proof of an unknown animal. Hoaxes have been done in the past–I have little faith in any of the photos. The Patterson film has been analyzed to death and despite several attempts to prove it false, it has several interesting features that raise eyebrows (I remain agnostic on the film however).
While most scientists would not touch Bigfoot with a ten foot pole, there are several legitimate ones who, examining the evidence, have come to the conclusion that there might be something going on worth serious study. Even Jane Goodall, no slouch in the primate science department, said on NPR that she thinks there is a good chance of Bigfoot’s existence. I nearly drove off the road.
>”From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn’t be right.”
And that’s the crux here. Both people can’t be ‘right’ in that sense. So, who is? Subjectively, both are. But objectively? “A”? “B”? Or neither?
It is, incidentally, interesting to note that in an unscientific poll held in the GLOBE & MAIL daily newspaper (out of Toronto), given the question of which the readers feared or distrusted the most of
Big government
Big business
Big religion
The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two.
Food for thought.
It is, incidentally, interesting to note that in an unscientific poll held in the GLOBE & MAIL daily newspaper (out of Toronto), given the question of which the readers feared or distrusted the most of
Big government
Big business
Big religion
The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two.
I’m not surprised. You can always buy off Big Government by offering it more power. You can always buy off Big Business by offering it more wealth. But a person or institution that truly believes in its own ethics won’t budge.
“These people, this VIDEODROME: they don’t do it for money. They have something you don’t Max – a philosophy; and that makes them dangerous.” David Cronenberg’s VIDEODROME
Darren,
Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren’t. It’s basically going “I don’t believe, but hey you could be right”.
My husband is Agnostic, and you are wrong. He does not say he doesn’t believe, he says he doesn’t know if God exists. Athiests say there is no God. Agnostics say they have no idea, one way or they other. There is a difference, although most people don’t get it and treat him as an Athiest. He is not an apologist and he is not sitting on the fence. He acknowledges that there is a possiblility of a Higher Being. That is quite different than definitively denying the existence of God.
Agnosticism always seemed to me to be an apoligy, a way to be an atheist without totally offending the majority of people who aren’t. It’s basically going “I don’t believe, but hey you could be right”.
Karen:
My husband is Agnostic, and you are wrong. He does not say he doesn’t believe, he says he doesn’t know if God exists. Athiests say there is no God. Agnostics say they have no idea, one way or they other. There is a difference, although most people don’t get it and treat him as an Athiest. He is not an apologist and he is not sitting on the fence. He acknowledges that there is a possiblility of a Higher Being. That is quite different than definitively denying the existence of God.
I am right there with your husband. While I have no reason to believe that there is a higher power, I also have no reason to totally deny the possibility of the existance one. This belief is not stated for anyone’s benefit, nor do I feel a need to tell everyone that I encounter of metaphysical philosophies. I’m not looking for a “Get Out of Jail Free” card if I find out that there is something out there after I’ve died by saying to *fill in the blank*, “I’ve never denied you”, but I also have no desire to pray to, beg for, attempt to manipulate my will on or barter with a higher being on the off-chance that I will be punished for it after death. I’ve walked away from jobs on principle and have been very uncomfortable financially due to my decisions. It is with this same mindset that I do not fear an afterlife.
I have actually enjoyed many a conversation about philosophy and different thoughts on spirituality when I encounter people who feel differently than I do. In cases where I find myself talking with someone who has made it clear that they are living the “correct way according to ****” and that I am most definitely worng, I simply smile inwardly, sometimes listenly politely or occassionally engage enough to collapse the straw man arguments that are thrown at me. Ultimately, I have found that there is little point in discussing anything with someone who doesn’t respect your viewpoint and has made it clear that they are not hearing a word that you say due to this fact.
Fred
oops… though it may be obvious to some, the first statement in my post was added by Darren. I somehow neglected to type his name in to give him recognition for it.
// >”From a legal sense probably, but it still wouldn’t be right.”
And that’s the crux here. Both people can’t be ‘right’ in that sense. So, who is? Subjectively, both are. But objectively? “A”? “B”? Or neither? //
Law and morality have nothing to do with each other, (I know people always get that confused). As I said from a legal sense, but it still would be wrong. Just because somethings legal doesn’t make it right, (conversly just because something’s illegal doesn’t make it wrong). Discriminating against people is almost always wrong, it is however not always illegal.
// What evidence for Bigfoot has been discredited? //
Photos, footprints, films, recordings of sounds supposably made by bigfoot, hair that supposably came from a bigfoot, bones that supposably belonged to bigfoot. There hasn’t been a single piece of bigfoot evidence that hasn’t been discredited when looked at by real scientist and experts. The most famous peice of film footage of bigfoot was acknowdged as a fake by the person who created it, (he came clean decades later after his collaborator of that hoax died). Of course real scientist and film experts had written that piece of footage off as a hoax decades earlier.
// Back to Bigfoot. Why is such a creature so unlikely?//
I don’t remember saying Bigfoot is unlikly. I’m well aware that new specis are being discovered all the time and that there’s a lot about our world we still haven’t discovered. That being said that doesn’t change the point that there isn’t a single real piece of evidence pointing to the existance of such a creature.
The third option won(?) out easily, at 49%, over the other two. Food for thought.
Which is why many Americans should fear that all three of those options are working hand in hand in the Bush Administration.
I’m real curious as to what percentages B.G. and B.B. scored…
Need a similar poll here in America…
“There hasn’t been a single piece of bigfoot evidence that hasn’t been discredited when looked at by real scientist and experts. The most famous peice of film footage of bigfoot was acknowdged as a fake by the person who created it, (he came clean decades later after his collaborator of that hoax died).”
You are referring to the Patterson footage. Unfortunately, the guy who claimed that he was in on the “hoax” has zer (nada, zip, etc) evidence other than his claim. He is also the latest in a long line of people who have claiemd that they were the guy in the suit. Obviously, some must be lying.
As I said, I’m not wholly convinced of the aunthenticity of the Patterson footage but when a guy says he was the Bigfoot and he built the suit from a gorilla costume, etc, one should probably ask a few questions. For a long long time it was said that makeup expert Ðìçk Smith was the guy who did it because the suit was so good that only a few people could have faked it. Smith finally declared once and for all that it wasn’t him (some researchers continue to claim that Smith was the guy). Now they champion a guy who says it was little more than a cheap costume. I don’t know…
As far as I know, the Skookum Cast has not been discredited. Not all of the footprints collected by Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University have been discredited. National Geographic had an article not long ago on how some forensic experts had been impressed by the quality of dermel ridges on some of Meldrum’s collection. Footprints are easy to fake and have been faked, but you don’t have to be CSI to spot the fakes–for one thing, a wooden foot will leave the same imprint each time, while a real foot will be affected by what it is standing on.
At any rate, I stand by what I said. Ther IS evidence of Bigfoot. As the Skeptical Inquirer said “the question of Bigfoot’s existence comes down to evidence– and there is plenty of it.” You may conclude, as the SI writer does, that the evidence is weak. But it’s there.
“there isn’t a single real piece of evidence” If by “real” you mean evidence so strong that it is “proof”, you are correct. If you mean that every piece of evidence has been discredited, you are incorrect.
Bill
(and don’t get him started on sea monsters)
Tom Keller: Atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God, or gods. Agnosticism realizes that God cannot be proven or disproven.
Luigi Novi: Atheism, by definition, runs the gamut from what you describe as atheism, and what you describe as agnosticism. Agnosticism, for example, has been called
Apparently, that link didn’t work. It’s http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk17.html
For once, the fine folks at Skeptical Inquirer weren’t skepticle enough. They took the statement
Bill Mulligan: “The higher likelihood of a previously unknown primate is because the existence of the Orang Pendak is almost (but not quite) a slam dunk, based on hair fibers and the very high quality of the people making the reports (scientists, not guys named Cletus).”
ME: Somewhere a scientist named Cletus is loading his scatter gun…
As Dr Cletus put it “Yuh-huh! My peepers don’t lie!”
PAD,
“Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship.”
Strawman argument. No one is saying gay marriage would ruin THEIR marriage. Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such “families”, not to mention role confusion.
Starbrand:
The sales tax when used in conjunction with other taxes doesn’t work well; ONLY sales tax would if the products and services were the same price as before. The sales tax would be ‘invisible’ and those who have withholding from their check get a big fat raise. So far, the couple people responding about the Fair Tax haven’t looked into it. Please do. While it makes too much sense to ever be enacted, it would solve all sorts of problems.
“Proving God Scientifically”
Not all things are open to scientific investigation. Love, for example, can’t be proven. Historical figures like Alexander the Great or King David can’t be scientifically proven. That’s just the way it is.
Our Polygamist (sorry, couldn’t find your name above):
None of my business, so feel free to ignore the question since it’s idle curiosity, but… do the three of you share one bed? Are you all intimate or do you trade off? I’ve often wondered about the structure of such a congregation, but had no one to ask. 🙂
PAD,
“Thus his challenge: Explain how your neighbor marrying his life-long (same-sex) sweetheart will force you to reconsider marriage and divorce your wife just so as not be be in the same kind of relationship.”
“Strawman argument.”
You have zero concept of what a strawman argument is, if that’s what you think.
A strawman argument is an easily refuted proposition put forward in order to make the opposing side look stupid. Demanding proof is not a strawman argument. The opposing side is continuing to insist substituting biased opinion for demonstrable fact, and I for one am sick of it.
“No one is saying gay marriage would ruin THEIR marriage. Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such “families”, not to mention role confusion.”
Oh, they’re saying much more than that. Let’s check it out, from bopping around the net:
“If California legalizes same-sex marriages,” says BOND founder and president Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, “it will destroy the family, especially the black family.”
“On April 25, some 7,000 people in San Francisco’s Sunset district — primarily Chinese Americans and Christians from 180 Bay Area churches — protested same-sex marriage, reports Julie D. Soo in the May 21 edition of San Francisco’s English-language weekly AsianWeek. Gay marriage “could lead to the extinction of the entire human race,” said event spokesman Rev. Thomas Wang, as reported in the Chinese newspaper Sing Tao. “There will be no future if the United States does not repent.”
“Activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.”
What I’m saying is that arguments of this exact type were introduced at the notion of having black men serve beside white men in the military, or permitting interracial marriage. I’m saying that fear and bigotry remain one of the constants of the unthinking. I’m saying that I’m sick of boneheads hauling out “The children must be protected!” as if children aren’t already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects. And I’m saying, yet again, that I’m tired of having opinion served up as fact.
Let’s see opponents of gay marriage put their marriage where their mouth is. Because the fact is that the concept of “family” and “marriage” are historically far more flexible than the opponents of change in both. If they’re saying that same sex marriage will destroy the family and the human race, then let them prove it by starting small.
Let them present a hundred people who are willing to say that they themselves either will divorce or never marry if gays are given the same rights as they. It’s been over a week since I challenged people to step up to the plate and honestly say that if gays are in, they’re out. No one has done so.
Let them show up here with fifty couples.
Ten couples.
One couple.
Put up or shut up.
PAD
Peter David: “It’s been over a week since I challenged people to step up to the plate and honestly say that if gays are in, they’re out. No one has done so.
Let them show up here with fifty couples.
Ten couples.
One couple.
Put up or shut up.”
Hi Peter,
Well said. I predict that an overly conservative couple will get married for the sole purpose of getting divorced when gay marriage becomes legal just to make a point.
For approximately 15 minutes low rumblings will be heard and then this couple will be forgotten due to our societies attention focusing on the new Beanie Baby or Tickle Me Elmo that comes down the pike.
However, I could the guy who lives up to your challenge because I’m not getting married. Ever*. It wouldn’t work though, because I’d have to lie about my position on the matter of gay marriage, which I won’t do.
On the subject of this thread, I believe that most of us have missed the point: That people like simple answers because it requires little to no thought and that is one place where such bigotry can spring from. That’s how I interpreted it anyway.
*This is when someone tells me that I’ll find someome like I’m feeling sorry for myself. That’s not the case. I already found her. Marriage just isn’t an option for people like me. At best we’d be miserable, at worst it would result in an appearance on COPS.
Well, Peter beat me to the punch on some of these comments, but what the hëll
It is a strawman argument and I explained why. None of your quotes said their marriages would be over. Your “challenge” is a hollow one. Find me a credible quote where someone says “if gay marriage is approved, MY marriage will be destroyed.”
I’d like to hear the reasoning behind Peterson’s belief why the Black family would be destroyed, or was that just a sound bite? The “extinction” quote sounds familiar, and if it is the one I’m thinking of, then it’s taken out of context (to wit: ‘one can determine the morality of an action by extropolating it to ALL people. If everyone did it, gay marriage would mean the extinction of the human race.’ I don’t agree with that morality test, but that changes the spin on that quote if that was, indeed, the context.)
You said: “as if children aren’t already living in same sex-based family situations with no demonstrable negative effects.”
That sounds like an opinion, not fact. At least anecdotal evidence would say that is completely wrong, in that the same-gender families I’ve encountered do have negatively impacted children. I’ve seen studies (no links, I’ll see what I can find) that very much do conclude that same sex families, as well as divorce, have harmed children more often than not.
Your challenge might be repeated to the liberals who actually DID say they’d leave the country if Bush was elected. Since a handful did say it, should all liberals have to put up and leave the country, or shut up?
Fear and bigotry are handy labels for people who disagree with you. Some, no doubt, are fearful and bigoted, in that they are uninformed. Others examine the evidence and come to different conclusions than you do. Some don’t feel like conducting a social experiment that may put their kids at risk.
I’m just skimming, so my apologies if I missed something and I’m repeating.
Robbnn, if no one has said that their marraige would suffer if gays are allowed to marry, then why is this even an issue? If there’s no personal harm being committed on anyone, why is the Bush administration spending time (and thus tax payerss dollars) on trying to get gay marraige declared illegal?
Before you can take someone to court, they have to injure you. If there’s no injury, you have no case. No suit. It’ essentially why “intentional infliction of emotional distress” was created, to recognize that there are some injuries that carry no physical evidence to support them.
If gay marraige hurts no one, why make it illegal?
Luigi, sorry, we must have posted at the same time.
Marriage is down, living together is up – I would say no-fault divorce is the reason for this (among other things). Marriage has been harmed by it, would be my conclusion. The argument would be that gay-marriage further weakens the institution so why get married? Marriage means less and less. It hasn’t adapted to changes, divorce is way up; some of those changes you mentioned did harm it. Folks here have said that marriage isn’t about raising children anymore, so why not just live together if you don’t plan on having kids?
Marriage is foundation of our society, that’s why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You’ll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what’s the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.
As for using children as a smokescreen, I think you’re questioning the sincerety of people concerned for their children. They really might be, you know.
Quotes around “families” wasn’t meant to debase. Sorry it was taken that way. I just meant same-sex with children families as opposed to traditional family.
“Luigi Novi: Then those who would insist on using scientific or empirical terminology on the subject shouldn
Bobb,
It isn’t a matter of making it illegal, is it? It’s a matter of making it legal.
One purpose of a country’s laws is to help define an image of the society we want to be. My Libertarian leanings are being challenged by the concept that law is a tool of shaping society.
I might ask the question that since a gay committed relationship isn’t illegal, why push for marriage? I have several gay friends who consider themselves married, so why the need for the law to recognize it? Clearly there is a legitimization in mind. Right now, our body of laws doesn’t legitimize homosexuality (it makes provisions that they shouldn’t be descriminated against, but that isn’t legitimization, it’s just basic freedom). Canada has made that distinction and now they have to abridge the free speech rights of the church; it is a crime to read certain passages of the Bible out loud in Canada, not to mention preaching about those passages. Do we want to go there?
Granted this is only anecdotal, but I know people who were raised by same-sex parents and they are well-adjusted adult(in their mid 20’s), all but one being heterosexual. Robbnn mentioned studies that conclude the opposite (not about the sexual orientation but being well adjusted adults). I would like to know more of those studies and who conducted them because they are contrary to my own experience.
Robbnn:
>Marriage is foundation of our society, that’s why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You’ll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what’s the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.
Though I’ve no real interest in rereading the entire thread, most of those who have brought up the nearly 60% divorce rate as evidence that the institution of marriage is already in crisis are doing so to point out that the issues lie, not in whether we allow or disallow gay couples to marry, but in the failures of our society under the current leanings. You may wish it to be that the proponants of recognized gay marriage are utilizing the “what more harm can it cause” argument, but this simply is not so in the vast majority of people advocating it.
Fred
Robbnn, those are good points, and I struggle to counter them. Darn it.
But, you’re mentioning gay couples that are married in their hearts, so to speak, is getting off the point, which is, their right to marry, now and in the future, is currently at stake. How many couples, whether gay or not, have you heard about that were the “secure in our relationship typ,” with no desire to get married. And then 3 years later, they get married, because they find that legally, being married in their own hearts just doesnt’ cut it when it comes to taxes, property, kids, health benefits, and all the other things our society has declared to go along with marriage. So not wanted or feeling the need today to enter marraige has little to do with whether you should take action to preserve that right later on down the road.
It’s the same with any right or act of discrimination: If it doesn’t impact you right now, there’s always the temptation to allow it to happen. Inherant in that risk is that, when it finally DOES impact you, it may be too late to do anything about it.
Robbnn:
“Marriage is foundation of our society, that’s why the government rewards it. Stable marriages and family are important to society. You’ll even find the argument on this thread that since marriage is so screwed up already, what’s the harm in gay marriages? THAT is what they mean by marriage being harmed.”
Hi Robbnn,
I disagree with your statement that marriage is the(a) foundation of our society. I have never read in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of rights, or Declaration of Independance anything to support the position that marriage is in any way a foundation for anything. Freedom, Justice, and Liberty I can see as foundations for our society based on documents used to forge and define our society, but not marriage.
Would you be so kind as to tell me upon what basis you make the statement that marriage is a ( or the) foundation of our society?
If gay marraige hurts no one, why make it illegal?
The “victimless crime” argument – and it’s a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can’t think of. Strict Libertarianism holds that all of these should be legal. The counter-argument is that society should regulate some behavior based on the long term implications.
Take prostitution for example. Nevada has regulated it, and (by all accounts) is reasonbly successful. Las Vegas got rid of it, though, because of the “unsavory” element it was bringing to the city – it wanted to clean up its image. Elsewhere, prostitution is fronting drug addicts, dealers and abuse of women.
At some point, society says “Nope, this is a longer term issue”. We tell people they can’t own a tank or a nuke because the Second Amendment – while in its purest interpretation would allow it – is regulated, and society has decided every house doesn’t need a chemical weapon.
Mark L, some of those examples do have victims, or at least, societal costs. Drugs lead to broken lives and families. Gun ownership has an associate danger of gun use, justifying some regulation. Each could probably be associated with some societal harm justifying regulation.
Gay marraige could lead to…happiness? Stable families? Sure, you could also say divorce and crimes of passion, but that’s not anything unique to gay marraige, just marraige. Drug use can lead to addiction, waste, and lost productivity, There’s a compelling cost drug use is strongly associated with that creates a strong societal incentive to prevent those costs through controlling drug use. What is the compelling societal cost associated with gay marraige?
Bobb:
>Gay marraige could lead to…happiness? Stable families? Sure, you could also say divorce and crimes of passion, but that’s not anything unique to gay marraige, just marraige. Drug use can lead to addiction, waste, and lost productivity, There’s a compelling cost drug use is strongly associated with that creates a strong societal incentive to prevent those costs through controlling drug use. What is the compelling societal cost associated with gay marraige?
We most probably would have to reassess our own biases and beliefs, considering once again that our way of living may not be the only “right” way to live. This type of thinking can be as scary as hëll for some people.
Fred
Wanna know why I support gay marriage? Because once this is all over, both sides of the issue will shut the hëll up. The constant table thumping from either camp is just getting on my nerves. You make gay marriage legal, then everyone will go away, eventually.
The peace of mind out of legalizing it would be worth it alone.
TFE, if that is all it takes to get your support, people’ll be glad to have it. Though, I believe the need to continued dialogue is essential regardless of which way this goes in the near future.
Mark L.:
“The “victimless crime” argument – and it’s a good one. The same argument is made for drugs, underage smoking, prostitution, gun ownership, pornography, assisted suicide and probably several others I can’t think of.”
Hi Mark,
I agree with the spirit of your post, but I beleive that there is a valid distinction in that gun ownership and pornography are not crimes, victimless or otherwise while prostitution, drug use, and some others not mentioned are crimes.
Bobb:
Gun ownership has an associate danger of gun use, justifying some regulation.
Hi Bobb,
Ok, so I’m a pro-gun guy. I’m one of them who agrees with logical regulation and proper enforcement of existing laws while disagreeing with knee-jerk laws. I agree with the spirit of your statement but I wonder if you meant “an associate danger of gun MISuse” since the phrase “gun use” is broad ranging.
Yes, I’m splitting hairs (quite a feat for a bald guy), but I believe such distinctions are important since I’m a big fan of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
Mitch,
That should have been “a foundation” not “foundation” or “the foundation”. Sorry.
A society must continue, and it must continue “in health” to be successful. Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself. If marriage and family weren’t foundations, then the society would be a short one.
Our society has changed drastically (as societies do) and not all change is for the better. When we concentrate solely on the individual and his or her desires rather than on the long term effects of proposed changes, then we’re in trouble. To pull a Biblical quote, “and everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes” was always the beginning of the end.
Robbnn:
“That should have been “a foundation” not “foundation” or “the foundation”. Sorry.”
Hi Robbnn,
Thanks for clearing that up. Being no stranger to typos myself, well… we all kick ourselves in the butt at some point. 😉
“A society must continue, and it must continue “in health” to be successful. Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself. If marriage and family weren’t foundations, then the society would be a short one.”
I see your point and agree to a large extent. I must point out, however, that homosexuals with marriage rights does not eliminate or preclude heterosexual marriage rights. I don’t see where your criterion of “Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children” is in any way lessened by the rights of homosexuals to marry. In fact I wonder more adoptions would take place thus increasing the number well-educated and balanced children that are cranked out because I don’t believe that one is a bad parent due to their homosexuality. I believe that a bad parent is a bad parent regardless of their sexuality.
“Our society has changed drastically (as societies do) and not all change is for the better. When we concentrate solely on the individual and his or her desires rather than on the long term effects of proposed changes, then we’re in trouble. To pull a Biblical quote, “and everyone did what they thought was right in their own eyes” was always the beginning of the end.”
I’m all for looking at the long term, but I’m from the school of thought that believes that society is best served by equal rights for all individuals. Societies have also fallen as a result of individual rights being curtailed thus leading to revolution.
If I may ask, what is the context oc that quote from the Bible? I ask because I interpret it as being about decadence, which I think could apply to the likes of, say, corporate America, in cases where image and greed are valued over substance. I can see where that would lead to serious trouble in the long term in everyone were infected.
Thanks, Robbnn, for giving me your perspective and its basis. It occurs to me that you might be often unfairly perceived as a “gay basher” since gay bashers are also on the “don’t want it” side of gay marriage and make so much dámņëd noise.
I hope that came out right…
\\Good, stable homes cranking out well-educated and balanced children is the only method for a healthy society to propogate itself\\
Then wouldn’t all the time, effort, energy & money being put into opposing gay marriage be put to better use in education, schools & the like? Especially when government at all levels is cutting funding to education because the funds aren’t there?
Or is it more important to stop 2 people in love from getting married than it is to make sure our children can read, write & do math?
Some are saying, in effect, that gay marriage would make a circus of marriage and/or damage society through negative impact on children from such “families”, not to mention role confusion.
Hi.
I’d just like to know when we’ll see the “No Fault Divorce Ban Amendment” to our beloved Constitution.
Until we do, your arguments are laughable at best.
That’s all. Thanks.
Fred, change is scary. Facing the birth of my first child in October, I sometimes totally freeze up with the changes that are coming…or are already here. But I wouldn’t for the world want someone to outlaw having kids.
Mitch, you are correct. I mean gun misuse as being associated with societal costs. Some of which I think would go away if we were all armed. Maybe not with guns, but let me carry around a bo staff and be trained in it’s use, and I’m less likely to get mugged. Unless of course the mugger have bows.
Hmm, I can see where this is going….