Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs kansas778

Same-Sex Marriage: How Will it Affect Our Society?

Advertisement

All social ills will always exist, the only question is in what quantity. Divorce rates can go up or down, marriage rates can go up or down, out-of-wedlock childbirths can go up or down. Just because they already exist to a certain degree does not mean they cannot get worse.Changing the definition of marriage can have effects upon these social ills, for better or worse. Allowing for gay marriage changes the definition so that it loses meaning, and will have a negative impact upon society. As for how, normative definitions are agreed upon societal rules and expectations specifying appropriate and inappropriate ways to behave. In other words, definitions affect behavior by directing people how to act. It used to be that a family was a married couple and children, and other styles of families were considered deviant at worst, or alternative at best. With acceptance of single parent families and unmarried cohabitating couples with children as families, the definition has changed, and the effect upon behavior has as well. People who don't meet the 1950s style nuclear family don't feel compelled by the social rules and expectations to conform to that normative definition anymore. So for example, if you are a co-habiting couple, you don't need to be married to be considered a family, as you already are one. By making the definition more inclusive, it has lost its ability to affect people's behavior as it really means nothing because a family can be anything."Although many people think of themselves as individuals, the strong tendency of people to conform to group patterns and expectations is consistently documented in laboratory experiments, social surveys, and observations of mass behavior." Professor H. Wesley Perkins, A Brief Summary of Social Norms Theory and the Approach to Promoting HealthBy redefining marriage we will only make this situation worse. Marriage will lose its normative definition completely as a required part of having a family. Marriage will no longer be the building block of a family, but simply a confirmation of a relationship, or a commitment ceremony, and little more. It's not that divorce rates will go up, but marriage rates will go down. There just won't be a point anymore because it won't be what people are supposed to do anymoreThe danger comes from the change in the definition of what a marriage is in general. Our cultural belief is that if you want to start a family, you need to get married, but by creating the legal fiction of a "gay marriage" you are saying that having a family is not what marriage is about, but simply two people who want to be together, being together. The danger is that people just won't get married anymore when they start having kids, they won't see it as the required step. So they don't have the legally enforcement monogamy or the property rights that come with marriage. This is indeed what we see in countries with these legal fictions: people often wait until they have their second child before getting married. Their divorce rates haven't gone up because people aren't getting married in the first place.Marriage is a contract, and an extremely important one at that. One of the important agreements the couple makes upon entering the marriage is that they will be monogamous. The state has an important interest in encouraging people to be monogamous. It ensures that the fatherhood of the children will be more certain, so that fathers will stick around and help raise the children. Also men are not out fathering other children with other women that will become a burden on society. This interest simply does not exist among gay couples.The property rights of women in particular are what this is about, and creating the fiction of gay marriage will hurt women the most in this area. Women are the stay at home partner far more often then men, and as such they don't accumulate assets, experience, or promotions, so that upon a separation--without the marriage contract--they would be left with nothing to show for their years of work. Sending people the message that marriage is not the step you take when having children, but is just two adults wanting to be together, will have the harmful effect that people will not get married when they start having kids, like they do in Sweden and Denmark. Their generous nanny-state programs pay for raising out-of-wedlock children there, we don't have that kind of money here."Look at all the divorces, saving marriage is not a good reason to deny gay marriage."The central issue has to do with enforced monogamy. The father knows the children are likely his, and he's not out fathering other children of which the state will have to help take care. I'm sure you might say that people still cheat on their spouse, so there's no point. That is not true. If a crime prevention program lowers crime, then it is successful. If state enforced monogamy contracts (marriage) lead to more monogamy then it is successful. It is enforced by a financial penalty upon divorce. What point is there to enforcing monogamy among gay couples?As for the rise in single parent families and divorce occurring without gay marriage, yes, that's true, there are other factors that contribute. This is not a vacuum, and gay marriage would be one among many factors. Do you then wish to enact policies that would worsen the economy in the midst of a recession? I hope not, and saying that marriage is not in a good state is no excuse for worsening it."Outlawing gay marriage is the same as outlawing interracial marriage--it's based on hatred and bigotry."Comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is misleading at best. Interracial marriage still accomplishes all the goals of the state in providing for children and for the child-raiser and so on. It does not change the definition of a marriage or the purpose of marriage. Interracial marriage bans were based on racism, gay marriage bans are not based on hatred of homosexuals, but on not changing the definition of a societal norm.Looking at the actual arguments made in the Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage case, the arguments were mostly based on eugenics, "improving" the races and "keeping the white race pure." In the appellate brief to the Supreme Court written by the Attorney General of Virginia Robert Y. Button, he states that: "there is authority for the conclusion that the crossing of the primary races leads gradually to retrogression and to eventual extinction of the resultant type unless it is fortified by reunion with the parent stock.""The results of racial intermarriage have been exceedingly variable. Sometimes it has produced a better race. This is the case when the crossing has been between different but closely allied stocks...It is an unquestionable fact that the yellow, as well as the negroid peoples possess many desirable qualities in which the whites are deficient. From this it has been argued that it would be advantageous if all races were blended into a universal type embodying the excellencies of each. But scientific breeders have long ago demonstrated that the most desirable results are secured by specializing types rather than by merging them.""the intermixtures which have been beneficial to the progress of mankind have been between nearly related peoples and that the results of a mixture of widely divergent stock serve to warn against the miscegenation of distinct races.""where two such races are in contact the inferior qualities are not bred out, but may be emphasized in the progeny, a principle widely expressed in modern eugenic literature. "The only social concern it raises about divorce is that interracial marriages will have a higher divorce rate since their racist families will make life hell for them. But this was an afterthought. No one today is arguing that gay marriage will cause harm to the purity of any race or that any specific harm will result from individual gay marriages. It is the broader social harm of redefining marriage that is the concern, and the negative consequences that this will bring.

Comments

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

I thought I had written some pretty good posts on the topic, so I collected them and edited them into this blog article. Enjoy!

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

jonas: "With so many to choose from, it becomes personal prioritization on which of these forms and processes evoke meaning, wouldn't you say?"I've found that aluminum foil can be particularly helpful when channeling life's deeper meanings ( and mysteries ) , so much so that I've fashioned a little hat for myself.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

witch: "Who has the right to 'define' marriage?"If "marriage" is not defined in a meaningful way, then, as Satirical has observed, there is no non-arbitrary definition which does not qualify, including marriage between adults and children.Who are you to say that an adult male cannot marry a 13-year-old girl or a 13-year-old boy, for that matter? Who are you to tell a member of NAMBLA that he and his consenting lover cannot be married? Wouldn't that amount, as others have suggested, above, to "ramming" your limiting definition "down the throats" of others?And, BTW, assertions insisting on a religious or hate-related basis for defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman are simply unfounded. Even when such assertions arise from a religious context, there are no tablets to consult; the "author," ultimately, is man.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

witchfindergeneral (Anonymous) says: How has same-sex marriage affected the UK and the dozens of other more progressive nations that allow the practice?Who has the right to 'define' marriage? Your God? Your bible? Millions of Americans (myself included) don't accept this arbitrary, religious definition. The inherent religious prejudice of the many is not a valid reason to deny a basic human right to the few.********1. I never said anything about any gods or religions, save your form argument for someone else.2. Denmark and Sweden have enacted equivlant rights and have since seen declines in marriage rates and increases in divorce rates. However, these rates were already changing in this direction, so it's hard to say whether gay marriage caused these changes, added to an existing trend, or had no effect at all.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

Does anyone else find it ironic how much hatred and abuse comes from those who accuse me of the same?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

kansas778: "Does anyone else find it ironic how much hatred and abuse comes from those who accuse me of the same?"It doesn't surprise me; been there, lived that.It's the last refuge for those maintaining a baseless position.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

madameX (Anonymous) says: The state does not enforce monogomy, people can be swingers and whatnot if that's what they want to do. I think you can divorce on grounds of adultery, but you don't have to. Monogomy is not a legal condition of marriage. The marriage is not immediately dissolved if one of the members cheats.******I suppose when I use the term "enforce" that's the legal way of using the term. When you ask a court to enforce a contract, it is a rare occasion that they actually force the other party to carry out the contract. Enforcement means money damages, and upon divorce, if one party has broken the promise of monogamy, they will pay when it comes to the specifics of the divorce. Yes, people can be swingers and the state won't declare the marriage over, but you can be late on your car loan payment, breaching the agreement, and not have the state declare the contract over as well. The point is that the state will enforce monogamy, and this is an incentive for people to keep it in their pants. Of course this is only an incentive, not something that is forced, so people will still cheat on their spouse, but some will not.I don't know what kind of evidence you want. We are talking about a relatively recent phenomena in the history of this country. As I said earlier, there are declining rates of marriage and increasing rates of divorce in other countries that have adopted gay marriage or something like it, but we can't be sure whether gay marriage is the cause or not because there are many other factors that could be driving those changes. That's the problem with social science, we can't conduct experiments to provide clear evidence. We can't enact gay marriage, then go back in time and see what would happen if we don't. It is, however, incorrect to think that there will be no effect at all. Maybe it will be a net positive effect, but I haven't seen anyone making that argument. The only argument I regularly hear is "why not." If this sounds like a dodge then I will get to the point: there is no conclusive evidence of what would happen if gay marriage was universally adopted in the United States. If you disagree with my conclusions, what then do you think will happen?

0

madameX 5 years, 11 months ago

""I also say that marriage is about enforced monogamy,"" The state does not enforce monogomy, people can be swingers and whatnot if that's what they want to do. I think you can divorce on grounds of adultery, but you don't have to. Monogomy is not a legal condition of marriage. The marriage is not immediately dissolved if one of the members cheats. ""property rights,""which you address as they pertain to women who have chosen to stay home and raise children. ""a contractual relationship,""Which can exist regardless of gender. ""and establishing paternity""Which has to do with children and brings me back to my original point.It's not up to you to define marriage for the rest of us, and your arguement that defining marriage in a way other than the definition that you have chosen to assign it will somehow be damaging to society is faulty because not everyone subscribes to your limited definition of marriage. And do you have any evidence to back up your claim that defining marriage in more inclusive terms will, in fact, have the effects you claim it will?

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

witchfinder--I am not a christian, and I do not believe in any gods, demons, devils, ghosts, angels, spirits, or any other supernatural phenomena. My intentions are to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I am completely open to anyone showing me where I'm wrong, but when most of what I get in return is invective about my character I find that rather unpersuading. In fact quite the contrary. Regardless, no one seems to have a good alternative as to what would happen to marriage and divorce rates if same-sex marriage was implemented nationwide. There seems to be an assumption that nothing will happen, but I don't accept that without some argument behind it. If someone could make an argument as to why same-sex marriage would have a neutral effect or a net positive effect, then that could change my mind. But no one does that.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

So, witchfindgeneral, madameX, and Clint:You also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage?Is marriage about encouraging stable families and providing the foundation of our society or is it just a contract? Should the government all total freedom of contract between individuals?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

jonas: "Hmmm: I just cut a square hole in the top-front-right of my skull."[ gasp! ] ... you didn't let out the magic smoke, did you?!

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

Hmmm. . . I just cut a square hole in the top-front-right of my skull.

0

jonas 5 years, 11 months ago

"Ahem: I'll reiterate marriage does not occur in a church or in a courthouse."You can reiterate if you want, it still doesn't make that sentence mean anything, or make it true."I need no "institution" to "legitimize" my marriage, "officially" or otherwise."Yes, you actually do, except probably to yourself. You can call yourself married if you want, but unless it involved the official documentation and signing the certificate, then you will not be recognized as being married, and not subject to the benefits of being married in the eyes of the state. And then, of course, you can tack God and the Church on if you need either of those parties to recognize your union, but that is unnecessary for being married. "Again, putting the cart before the horse: but, then again, as your concluding remark might suggest, horses certainly are not in need of carts."I could say the same, Tangent. To my mind, the relationship probably came much before the marriage, even if they didn't use those terms. I have a number of gay friends, by the way, none of which are married, many of whom have had very strong relationships. I'll also admit some degree of romantic deficiency, though I do try with my own marriage (which was a very strong relationship prior to signing the papers that made us "married," which I admit meant next to nothing to me but officialized redundancy tacked on to our strong relationship), but again we're not talking about anything romantic here. Gays fighting for the rights to a union are not fighting for the right to be romantically involved, they have that already.

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

No one knows, in answer to the question.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

RogueThrill: "They think that allowing gay marriage will lead to furries, beatializers and pedos to ask for the same rights."This, of course, is but another imagined talent of those who would detract... mind-reading.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

"...I presume your view of what is good and right is so broad as to be undiscerningly vacuous"Yeeeeeahhhh... Whatever... INclusive is stupid and without meaning? Brilliant. Oh and it was so hard to come to that conclusion from your statements!~) EXclusive is the way to go! Religiously right, right?Right,That's what I thought. Where is the damage to your narrow mind and why should anyone care?

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

BrianRsays: "How Will it Affect Our Society?"Most of society would not notice.---And THAT is why this back and forth is soooo weird and meaningless. I'm almost ashamed to have been part of it!~) I do like to hear the cocks crow, though.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

Clint--I see that you have prejudged my intentions, and while you don't overtly say so, you imply that I'm a bigot, a racist, a hypocrite, small-minded, a loser, operating under hatred etc. Other people share your view, but it is not apparent to me that advocating against same-sex marriage is as you say it is. You say that human rights are involved, but how exactly are people's human rights being denied? No one is being denied the opportunity to act as they wish regarding their sexuality, the only thing being denied is getting the state to sanction it in the form of a binding marriage contract. The question is about what should the state sanction, what should the state promote? You fail to address this concern with your invective rhetoric.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

reverber: "How about we let "the gays" get married as long as they promise to save a baby (or two) from abortion by adopting an unwanted child?"Social contractor.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJ: "Get a clue."Good advice; may it serve you.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

madameX (Anonymous) says: Excuse me, but since when is having children "what marriage is about?" ******I also say that marriage is about enforced monogamy, property rights, a contractual relationship, and establishing paternity.

0

Greg_Of_Michigan 4 years, 5 months ago

I fail to see how enforced monogamy, property rights, a contractual relationship, and establishing paternity can not apply to a moral homosexual couple. I also fail to see how these things would affect marriage. The definition of marriage is not being redefined with gay marriage it is being amended to allow human beings who were not allowed to enter into a momumental commitment beforehand to do so.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

"men are not out fathering other children with other women that will become a burden on society. This interest simply does not exist among gay couples"Good point? NOT! What the heck are you talking about?You cannot fix our society by sticking your tribes definition down the throats of real people. Commitment is commitment. It either works or it does not. Where is your proof that gay commitment is somehow LESS than heterosexual commitment? Where is your proof that it is worse?You are a knee jerking reactionary, steeped in the traditional hatred of "other". You have no ground upon which to walk or speak.Your view of what's right colors your vision beyond thought and reason.It is heterosexual stupidity that has created our world. It is our hatred and exclusivity and ignorance.Ramming your word into the animal nature of humanity does nothing but spur on your hatred and disrespect...and the hatred of your word and disrespect.I'd say it is foolishness and encouraging your, and your enemy's, foolishness.What is your ultimate goal? Is it to create a better world? From where and whence does your world view come?We do not live in a desert of desperate individuals. We are not the slaves of your patriarchy. The patriarchy has created this world. Deal with it. Live with it. Love in it. It is all you will ever have. You cannot change it from from the perspective of your narrow mind. Get a clue.We are your ilk's product. Take your bit of responsibility and understand the workings that you have helped create.The golden rule is broader than you are able to imagine and more capable of creating truth, beauty and love than your vile spit.Hatred, arrogance and ignorance will get your nowhere, sinner.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

The state should not be in the business of promoting, sanctioning or censoring behavior unless it is unequivocally proven detrimental to society's growth by critical analysis and consensus. Do you disagree? And is this analysis even possible?~) I'd say no. So allow us all our frivolous ranting and lives. What do you say, golden calf? Time is NOT on our side. We need more of it.We will all make mistakes and few will make fewer than most. Get over it and live with your tribe in peace and love. Can you not see that education and love are the only ways to a better future? You cannot beat your slaves into submission. It is a slow process to learn and teach, and only those with an arrogant disrespect can bear to treat their disagreements with lives as THE LAW empowering torture and death and the taking of other lives.Please remember that we must always beware our fellow slaves as they may decide to treat us as equals.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

I find it amusing that the bulk of the argument being made is an effort to convince me how terrible a person I am instead of addressing my argument.

0

staff04 5 years, 11 months ago

Marriage is a religious institution and should only be recognized as such. I think that the government condoning or acknowledging a religious institution in law is a violation of the Bill of Rights.Civil unions for all, marriages for those who hold religious institutions as important.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

witch: "I generally agree with your... pessimistic world view.",;-DMy world view isn't "pessimistic." Funny, just the other day, I was talking with Malkovich...It's rather remarkable how we come into being, is it not?-the fusion of two disparate entities, formerly "carried about in the pockets" of our parents ( so to speak ) . I can imagine an individual sperm tooling around in the dark, self-satisfied and seemingly complete, but longing for something unrealized... and then that encounter around which everything changes... the newly conceived being, perhaps not all that different from those "fragments" which gave it expression.Who knows... spiritually, maybe we're all just "gametes"... awaiting an encounter yet unrealized....

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

jaywalker: Don't say every word. There's bound to be a few typos in there. >B^)>

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"In this sometimes seemingly meaningless life in which we find ourselves, I believe that meaning is best derived from those "metaphors" surrounding our very existence-the forms and processes which give us expression."With so many to choose from, it becomes personal prioritization on which of these forms and processes evoke meaning, wouldn't you say?

0

james bush 5 years, 11 months ago

Fewer children!...........if all boys do only boys, don't donate their sperm, and don't do girls. And a bonus! .........Tiller the baby killer won't have to kill the babies before they are born or partially/nearly/on their way to being born.

0

kidicarus 5 years, 11 months ago

Kansas - Why post such a blog? Oh, to start a fight. If you are so proud of your article, I agree - put your name on it. I think the LJ world would be well served by having all bloggers post their real names with their blogs. I would be willing to bet that idiot bloggers such as yourself and BigPrune would die off quickly.By the way, you are a bigot. Your argument against being a bigot is something like:Kansas: "I think black people are less than I am, and shouldn't have the same rights as me."Kid Icarus: "So you are a bigot."Kansas: "Just because I don't want to give black people equal rights makes me a bigot?"Kid Icarus: "Yes you stupid bigot."Replace black with gay. Have fun with judgment day.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJ: "Your narrow minded view of what is good and right is wrong on SO many levels."And I presume your view of what is good and right is so broad as to be undiscerningly vacuous.

0

madameX 5 years, 11 months ago

Excuse me, but since when is having children "what marriage is about?" I thought marriage WAS about two people who want to be together being together, and if they have kids great, if not, also great. It's up to them. You're creating your own bit of fiction with that. The argrument that allowing couples who will never be able to have kids to marry will somehow make people think that they shouldn't bother to get married, thereby implying that it will prevent parents from doing what is best for their children, is seriously flawed, based as it is on a faulty premise. Do you have any evidence at all that backs this up?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

"In other words, definitions affect behavior by directing people how to act."Lengthy article; I haven't read it all, but the above snippet is a good starting point... and I concur.Rumor has it that youngsters now KNOW that they ARE gay from a very young age. What could it possibly mean for children to "know" such a thing, other than they are acting on cues in their environment? Populate the environment with roles to which to conform, and create conforming populations, invariably, as a result.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

bea: "Question: should heterosexuals unable to have children be allowed to marry?"Yes. I would go so far as to say... "encouraged" to marry.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

I am certain that no one who advocates for same-sex marriage is a hypocrite and advocates just as fervidly for polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage. After all, there is no non-arbitrary way to distinguish the argument in favor of one and not the others. Don't polygamist, etc, deserve to have their love recognized by society and the government? How does polygamy, group marriage or incestuous marriage affect your marriage?

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

duplenty (Anonymous) says: You were mistaken. As is most of what you have posted here.****Translation: it was too long for duplenty to read.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

bad_dog (Anonymous) says: Heck, why even have contracts if the courts won't enforce them?***Did you even read the very next line about money damages?_______The state is not a party to your car loan, thus in the absence of illegality,*****The state isn't a party to your marraige either, and lacks standing as well. When I say enforce I don't mean that the state goes out and checks on everyone's behavior, but that like a legally binding contract, the state WILL enforce it.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

So, rachaelisacancer....Do you also agree that polygamist, and people who want group marriage and incestuous marriage should not have their rights denied?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

Clint: "Isn't it obvious that the same small minded, small town, small intelligence people that held back the civil rights movement are the same losers that are attempting to hijack happiness from people that they will probably never even meet?"Tell us, big-minded, big-city, big-intelligence Clint, just what is it that's so lacking in the attainment of happiness by those who would make a homosexual choice that they need to validate their relationships with a term traditionally reserved for heterosexual unions?

0

RedwoodCoast 5 years, 11 months ago

I guess I would just ask 'what is tradition'? It seems to me that, in our society, we see social institutions--whether they be de jure or de facto--through an essentialist lens. K778, you mention that 'people who don't meet the 1950s style nuclear family don't feel compelled by the social rules and expectations to conform to that normative definition anymore.' That '1950's style nuclear family' is an essentialist concept. Basically, essentialism says that a concept, such as a family or an airplane, must look or behave a certain way. That 1950's style family broke up on reentry during the 1960's and 1970's. Would someone who is an expert in manufacturing biplanes think that a monoplane is veering away from the archetypal airplane? Probably.I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe, as a society, we are not conceptualizing our society in a realistic manner. We still try to enforce 2000+ year-old divine mandates upon today's wired society. I personally think that it is naive to hold marriage to its '1950's style nuclear family.' If one looks at societies and cultures worldwide, then it becomes obvious that this '1950's style nuclear family' might actually be one point along a broad spectrum of realities. And you say that we sanction monogamous heterosexual relationships as a society. I guess my question is this: Is your 'traditional' concept of marriage realistic, given that other societies, both synchronically and diachronically, do not follow that same pattern? Could it be that modern American society is latching onto a concept of marriage that was defined during a certain social milieu--that being immediate post-WWII United States? If we know that variation within the term 'marriage' exists among human societies, then how do we know that the '1950's style nuclear family' is the end all and be all? I don't know what is, but I personally find it laughable to believe that the 1950's thing is the end all and be all.

0

RogueThrill 5 years, 11 months ago

They think that allowing gay marriage will lead to furries, beatializers and pedos to ask for the same rights.Clearly they are idiots because no one wants that and because you can EXPRESSLY LIMIT THE LAW TO PREVENT IT. This is not the case of slippery slope, this is the case of spinny dope.

0

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

That's okay, jonas, I get the gist even so.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJ: "INclusive is stupid and without meaning?"I have no problem with INclusion. I ran with my gay friends for years. They knew my perspective; they seemed to value my company nonetheless. I valued theirs. Had they not succumbed to complications of AIDS, we would be spending time together, still.But their relationship would never constitute a marriage. ( And, frankly, I don't think they ever would have pursued such a charade. )

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 11 months ago

"A right delayed is a right denied." - Dr. King Jr.

0

BrianR 5 years, 11 months ago

"How Will it Affect Our Society?"Most of society would not notice.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

Without definition there is little truth. What is a consenting adult? Are you prepared to define that term? Are you prepared to deny individual's truths? Are you willing to ram your beliefs down the throats of the children of the lamb?i thought so...

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

kansas: "My intentions are to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people."What social conventionists appear to be overlooking here is that marriage happens between two people, not in churches, not in courtrooms or legislative forums, not in Vegas... between two people.

0

reverber 5 years, 11 months ago

How about we let "the gays" get married as long as they promise to save a baby (or two) from abortion by adopting an unwanted child?What's the deal with all of the neocon editorials here of late? A reaction to the possibility of a "colored" president? (BTW, looks like that color is now "pinko" according to the latest neocon attacks).

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04..."A changing definition does not induce changes in behavior."Oh really, so if the definition of homicide now means posting on a blog would that induce behavioral change?

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

Where is the hatred and abuse?Point it out?

0

mom_of_three 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, I support same sex marriage. And same sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, incestuous or group marriages. It is apples and green beans. Polygamy and multiple marriages have nothing to do with two people who care about each other. And same sex marriage is about two unrelated people, which incestous marriage is not.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

beatrice, I disagree about your terminology. I am not dictating how others live. People are free to live however they wish regardless of a piece of paper from the government. What I endorse is not dictating to people how to live, but encouraging people to live a certain way. Very different. By promoting marriage the government encourages people to choose it. As I lay out above, there are many benefits to doing this. However, there doesn't exist a similar benefit to the state in encouraging gay couples to marry.

0

bad_dog 5 years, 11 months ago

"I suppose when I use the term "enforce" that's the legal way of using the term. When you ask a court to enforce a contract, it is a rare occasion that they actually force the other party to carry out the contract."-778So much for the doctrines of specific performance and liquidated damages. Why even bother filing breach of contract actions if courts rarely enforce them? Heck, why even have contracts if the courts won't enforce them?"Yes, people can be swingers and the state won't declare the marriage over, but you can be late on your car loan payment, breaching the agreement, and not have the state declare the contract over as well. The point is that the state will enforce monogamy, and this is an incentive for people to keep it in their pants"-778The state is not a party to your car loan, thus in the absence of illegality, they lack legal standing to declare a contract void or enforce contractual rights or obligations between the parties. While the state prohibits polygamy, group marriages and incestuous relationships, they do not "enforce" monogamy, they validate it. Irrespective how you get your "fulfillment", how does monogamy inherently create an incentive to keep it in your pants? If you're a drifter, you're gonna drift irrespective of the state's endorsement of your status.

0

George_Braziller 5 years, 11 months ago

Wow kansas778 do the back of your hands drag on the ground when you walk? Last that I heard was that Neanderthals had died out about 15,000 years ago.

0

CarterFaucheaux 5 years, 11 months ago

I read your post and while I don't agree with you, I appreciate your attempt to offer your opinion in a civil manner.Why do you assume that gay couples do not want to start families? What if they wanted to adopt a child who would live in a foster home his entire life otherwise? Should men and women who are unable to reproduce also be disallowed from marriage, as they obviously cannot start a family of their own offspring either.

0

staff04 5 years, 11 months ago

Ok, Satirical, here we go. Your response was predictably based in your religious values.Yes, it currently is a civic institution. That doesn't make it right. The right to abortion is a civic institution, so I guess you agree with that as well.What evidence, that doesn't come from your magic book, indicates that government sanction of a religious institution has had any role whatsoever in promoting a stable society?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJ: "EXclusive is the way to go! Religiously right, right?If you haven't gleaned from my other posts, by now...I'm not conventionally "religious" by any stretch of the imagination. JJ: "Right, That's what I thought."Well, if you're going to do both parts,then you really ought to try to get mine right. JJ: "Where is the damage to your narrow mind and why should anyone care?""...If you didn't care what happened to me,And I didn't care for you,We would zik-zak our way through the boredom and painOccasionally glancing up through the rain.Wondering which of the BLOGGERS to shameAnd watching for figs in the wing."

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

"Allowing for gay marriage changes the definition so that it loses meaning, and will have a negative impact upon society."What meaning does it lose? What are the proven negative impacts? How can one relationship affect another?You are talking our of your assumptions

0

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Don't want to get mired down in this discussion, but I will say ......... what jonas said, every word.I do not see why allowing gays to marry would change the institutions meaning, perhaps the definition, but the social contract would hold. Has allowing women and blacks the ability to vote changed the meaning of 'citizen' or 'American'? Nor do I agree with the argument that allowing civil unions between homosexuals will open the door for polygamists or incestuous relationships, or grant legitimacy for twelve year olds to marry. That's virtually the same as saying if society recognizes homosexuals then what's to stop pedophiles from gaining legitimacy; it's not the end of the world as we know it (REM, one-nothin'!).

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

I address those questions in the next three paragraphs after that quote. What behavior is affected/changed--the decision to marry.What ability to affect has been lost--people conform to definitions; by losing the definition there is nothing to conform to.

0

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

k778: "Does anyone else find it ironic how much hatred and abuse comes from those who accuse me of the same?"Don't you find it obvious that you are trying to dictate how others should live, and some people actually take offense? What if you lost your genitals -- should you be forced to divorce?You are simply the equivalent of those who were once against inter-racial marriages, even though it didn't effect them personally. Your form of social conservativism will someday be dismissed, because a group of adults can't dictate what is and what isn't appropriate behavior between two loving people. Question: should heterosexuals unable to have children be allowed to marry?

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Correction: Should the government (allow or enforce) total freedom of contract between individuals?

0

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"What social conventionists appear to be overlooking here is that marriage happens between two people, not in churches, not in courtrooms or legislative forums, not in Vegas: between two people."I don't agree. A "relationship" happens between two people in the manner that you describe. That relationship can be weak or strong regardless of its officially or religiously inscribed status. I can't see how you can dispute that, but if you can go ahead. The "marriage" is the institution by which the relationship is officially legitimated. The relationship is free to add extra meanings to that institution should they choose to, but none of them are required in the slightest.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

Ooh... Gross... What kind of weird deviant would seek validation of their love? DisGUSting!~) Get a clue as to your extreme prejudice, t_r. Your narrow minded view of what is good and right is wrong on SO many levels.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

witchfindergeneral: "tangential, you might have just persuaded me your Pink Floyd allusion. Let's be friends."You're not talking about one of those creepy backdoor rendezvouses, are you?BTW [tangedit] ...":If you didn't care what happened to meAnd I didn't care for youWe would Zik-Zak our way through the boredom, unseenOccasionally glancing up at the screenWondering which of the bloggers to flameAnd watching for figs in the wing" do you remember Max?( Why these things come to me a 5:30 am, I have no idea. )

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJ: "I do like to hear the cocks crow, though."One awakens me every morning.

0

mom_of_three 5 years, 11 months ago

I got halfway through the blog and couldn't finish it, as it was riddled with non-truths and someone's close minded opinion. marriage is not the building block of a family. Two people are a building block of a family. My mom lived with a man for almost 10 years before she married him. Were they a family then - heck yes. Why did she marry him? To be able to enjoy the legal rights that marriage entails, including increased social security benefits, in the event of the other's death. Maybe that's all that gays want from their marriage - legal recognition, and benefits that are accorded to hetero couples in marriage. I don't think that is too much to ask or wrong to want. And it has no effect on my marriage or my children's ability to marry.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

staff04..."Marriage is a religious institution and should only be recognized as such."You are wrong. Marriage has historical roots as an ecclesiastical institution, but currently is a civic institution. Which means the government can decide who can and who cannot get married. To the separate question of why should the government be encouraging or sanctioning relationship; the answer is to perpetuate and create a stable society, the same reason we have laws in general.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

Kansas778 says:"There seems to be an assumption that nothing will happen, but I don't accept that without some argument behind it. If someone could make an argument as to why same-sex marriage would have a neutral effect or a net positive effect, then that could change my mind. But no one does that."Kansas778: The purpose of any scientific study, behavioral or natural, is to disprove the null hypothesis. If one cannot disprove the null hypothesis by showing a statistically significant difference between two or more conditions then the null hypothesis stands. In other words, one must assume that "nothing will happen" by allowing gays and lesbians to marry unless one can definitively prove otherwise.Your illiteracy in the sciences is astounding.You would also be wise to consider the adage that correlation does not mean causation before you go flying off the handle and quote all kinds of baseless suppositions. If you can find some hard evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals, I would be very interested in reading them. I won't hold my breath though.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

witch--true, but you are the one that is prejudiced. You hold a preconceived idea that anyone who is against gay marriage must be prejudiced. I am not against gay marriage because of any hatred or dislike towards any particular group. You assume my intentions are other than what I state. You irrationally guess at what my intentions are and fail to address my argument. It is not my fault you can't see the other side of an issue without reverting to your personal prejudices.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

witch: "How would you define marriage, then?"In this sometimes seemingly meaningless life in which we find ourselves, I believe that meaning is best derived from those "metaphors" surrounding our very existence-the forms and processes which give us expression.I view marriage as an extended metaphor of conception, itself-the union of two complementary entities to create something new, something unique and qualitatively different from its constituents, something ( more ) whole.Marriage is as fundamentally dependent on complementarity as those forms and processes which give us expression in the first place. It is "who" we are; it is how we become ( both literally and figuratively ) .Now, perform the conventional translation, and you have a definition.

0

AjiDeGallina 5 years, 11 months ago

It is your opinion, you are allowed to ignore parts of the Bible, documentable facts from countries with gay marriage and scientific evidence...But it sort of makes you look silly.The way you right, however, is nice..you should try poetry.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

jonas: "Gays fighting for the rights to a union are not fighting for the right to be romantically involved, they have that already."ewwwwwe.

0

zbarf 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Witchfindergeneral:"That fact that you ASSUME it would lead to such unions shows how you reason: an alleged sexual defiance (homosexuality) would lead to others."I am not referencing sex, I am talking about marriage. Also, of course same-sex marriage would logically lead to polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults) because there is no non-arbitrary distinction between same-sex marriage and the ones I listed. To do otherwise would be logical dishonest or hypocritical. Almost every argument one can use favoring same-sex marriage can apply to these other "unions" and almost every argument one can make opposing polygamy, etc can be used against same-sex marriage. The fact that you oppose those types of marriage shows you are a hypocrite. You advocate for the right to marry to only a select few but deny the same right to others. You are worse than the people you demonize."I would say the government should allow "freedom of contract" between two willing citizens, regardless of orientation." - witchfindergeneralHere are the problems with this argument (which is why I asked it):First, there is no absolute freedom of contract. If there were there would be no minimum wage laws, etc.Second, marriage is not a contract it is a status. So laws respecting contracts do not apply.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

jonas: "I don't agree. A "relationship" happens between two people in the manner that you describe. That relationship can be weak or strong regardless of its officially or religiously inscribed status."Ahem... I'll reiterate... marriage does not occur in a church or in a courthouse. ( Ah, jonas, ALWAYS the romantic. ) jonas: "I can't see how you can dispute that, but if you can go ahead."Simple... one word after another. Assertion disputed. jonas: "The "marriage" is the institution by which the relationship is officially legitimated."I need no "institution" to "legitimize" my marriage, "officially" or otherwise. jonas: "The relationship is free to add extra meanings to that institution should they choose to, but none of them are required in the slightest."Again, putting the cart before the horse... but, then again, as your concluding remark might suggest, horses certainly are not in need of carts. Rather buttoned-down, jonas. You could use some GAY friends... not the morose variety to be found in these forums... you know, some with a sense of humor, and -self.

0

preebo 5 years, 11 months ago

Simply put,One word...Four Syllables...E-qual-it-y

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

I will repeat my question:Does everyone here who supports same-sex marriage also support and advocate for polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage? If not, why not?

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

Redwood, but it isn't "divine mandates" if there is no such thing as the divine. It's just a social institution that evolved in our culture to meet a need--the needs I discussed in the article. And yes, there are many different societies with their own traditions and beliefs, but what works for them might not work for us. Traditions are not isolated beliefs--they fit into the larger whole of the belief system of the culture. For example, the Maori's believe biting the latrine beam will give them courage in battle. It wouldn't do much for us without the accompaning belief that the latrine is also one of the gates to the spirit world. The two go hand-in-hand, and one doesn't make sense without the other. Heterosexual marriage is part of our culture, and it has a definition that parallels our views of gender and society. Other cultures that have same-sex marriage have accompanying different views about gender that make same-sex marriage compatible. We don't have these views--gender in western cultures is solely two categories: male and female, defined almost exclusively by anatomy. Is same-sex marriage compatible with our views of gender and sexuality? Is it compatible with our views of gender roles in the family?The views of marriage from the 1950s and earlier in Western culture may not be the "end all and be all," but they are what our culture developed through the years and what is most compatible with our other cultural views. Changing the definition of marriage will remove it from its place of meaning in relation to our other beliefs, and will not be compatible with them. What will the consequences be of this change?

0

bad_dog 5 years, 11 months ago

"Did you even read the very next line about money damages?"-778778-do you understand the concept of specific performance? Specific performance is an equitable legal remedy for breach of contract where the Court orders the offending party to do that which they agreed to do in the contract; whether it be to sell a unique piece of property, perform certain acts, etc. It is a substitute for monetary damages in cases where the act of performance is considered equal to or more important than monetary damages. As such, enforcement can and often does signify more than mere monetary damages. "The state isn't a party to your marraige either, and lacks standing as well. "Say what? While the state is not a party per se, and are not married to you, they indeed do have standing in any questions or subsequent disputes arising from the relationship. Who issued your marriage license? Who has the sole legal authority to dissolve that marriage? Were you married in a civil ceremony? Who has the legal authority to determine whether a valid marriage even exists, or creates the legal presumption a child was born to a given marriage? I think you know the answer.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

fuel_for_the_fire you haven't been following the whole discussion. I have already said that correlation does not prove causation in my 21 October 2008 at 6pm and 6:48 p.m. posts. So why do you make false accusations against me? If your argument is so strong you shouldn't need to revert to lying. You bring up statistical hypothesis testing, but I'm surprised you don't see the problem with using that as your model for evaluating social policy. Using statistical hypothesis testing is impossible because you can't have a control group. You accuse me of being scientifically illiterate but then you miss this obvious factor.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

bad_dog, yes, I understand specific performance, and as I said in my post, that is rare. Enforcing a contract can mean specific performance or monetary damages, what about that don't you understand?"Say what? While the state is not a party per se, and are not married to you, they indeed do have standing"*****Jurisdiction. The word you are looking for is jurisdiction, not standing, and it has a completely different connotation. You are not a lawyer, stay away from the technical stuff.

0

sfjayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

It is simply opinion to say that marriage has anything to do with having children, not fact. It is an opinion not shared by thousands of married couples without kids. It is an opinion also not shared by thousands of same sex couples in MA and CA. How about keeping your opinions to yourself, epically the ones with a foundation in bigotry and fear.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

Good God Kansas778: you are dense. Read a stats book, or at least google null hypothesis, before you respond again.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

Kansas778 your argument is not substantive, but because you fail to grasp even high school level statistical analyses, you mistakenly think that it is. I will try one more time to help you understand by illustrating a hypothetical research study. Let's say you want to see what impact same-sex marriage will have on a population of people. Because there are more progressive countries in the world which allow this, you have a population to study; Canada comes to mind.So, let's pick a dependent variable that we think may be affected; for example, the rate of divorce. By allowing more people in the population to marry, there are more opportunities for divorce to occur. Are you with me so far?Now, because Canada keeps track of things like the rate of divorce we know what the rate was prior to allowing same-sex marriages as well as the rate following same-sex marriages. This is your basic ABA design also known as a pretest/postest research study. The difference between the two rates is subjected to what's known as within-subjects statistical analyses. Note that there is no control group in this design. Two or more groups would be a between-subjects design.If the difference between the two rates is statistically different from zero, then you have support (not proof) for the hypothesis that same-sex marriages lead to higher divorce rates. However, if the difference between the rates observed prior to same-sex marriages is not statistically different from the rate observed following same-sex marriages, that is, the observed difference is not different from zero, then you have to accept the NULL HYPOTHESIS, which in this case, is stated as 'same-sex marriages do not affect the rate of divorce in a population'.Now, my point is that unless you can demonstrate how same-sex marriage will adversely affect a population, you must assume that it will not.Do you know of any adverse affects the people of Canada have suffered because of the decision to grant all of its citizens the right to legally marry?

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

Kansas778 says: Using statistical hypothesis testing is impossible because you can't have a control group. You accuse me of being scientifically illiterate but then you miss this obvious factor.Well, silly me. I guess all of those behavioral scientists don't know what they are talking about when they report statistically signifcant findings.Try to follow along.Your pre-test (that would be your baseline) would be the level of your dependent variables during the status quo. The introduction of same sex marriage is the independent variable. A subsequent measure of these same dependent variables is the post-test. Any observed differences in your chosen dependent variables would be subjected to statistical analyses; even a simple t test would suffice.I have no idea what your dependent variables would be, usually these are chosen based on some sound theory. I don't know of any sound theory that supports the notion that same sex marriages are a detriment to others.Only an experimental study needs a control group; not every research study is experimental; some, as in this case, would be observational. I stand by my initial judgement regarding your knowledge of science.Also, how did I lie? I simply advised you to adhere to an adage. The fact that you brought up the same adage earlier does not make me a liar. I also now question your literacy in general.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

fuel, you can't recreate a nation-wide or even a state-wide social experiment in a control group. Statistical hypothesis testing is impossible in this situation. "I don't know of any sound theory that supports the notion that same sex marriages are a detriment to others."Straw man."Only an experimental study needs a control group; not every research study is experimental"You mentioned having to disprove the null hypothesis, but you now contend that no control group is required? What then do you compare the variation to in order to see if it is statistically significant? Quit trying to bring up BS about methodology, it's just a dodge to avoid my substantive argument."Also, how did I lie? I simply advised you to adhere to an adage. "Oh I see, you just brought that up out of thin air. Well thanks for the reminder to do something I was already doing.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

And my initial point was, and still is, that unless someone can offer real evidence to support the notion that society will suffer if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, then any arguments against giving them this right are based on opinion, not fact. Now I would agree that everyone has the right to their own opinion, even the dull and the ignorant. I disagree, however, that this should be what drives public policy.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

Poor fuel, thought he was so smart that he would just blow dumb little me away with his convoluted criticism of methodology. Now he's resorted solely to invective because he's out of arguments and out of his league.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

fuel--that would only show a correlation, it wouldn't be proof of anything. You couldn't reject the null hypothesis because it would be impossible to tell what caused the change. You can't use statistical hypothesis testing for public policy, it is impossible. The rate of divorce before same-sex marriage and after could have changed for 100 different reasons. You've dug yourself a hole so deep you can' stop digging now can you. After all, you talked like you were sooo smart, now you've been shown that you're wrong, and you, just like George Bush, can't admit when you're wrong.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

JJE007 (Anonymous) says:belief is so sweetexcept when if believes liesmaking up our truth...when it believes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBRE...

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 11 months ago

belief is so sweetexcept when if believes liesmaking up our truth

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

witchfinder, that's not really my argument, but I would add that while you are correct in pointing out that same-sex marriage has not led to these things, it has only been around for a short period of time. Perhaps a similar extension of rights occurred when minorities were granted suffrage, and then later that was expanded to women--that situation didn't occur overnight either. The whole point is when you make the argument based on a "human rights" theory, if that argument suceeds, you must face the consequences of what else would natrually flow from that argument.

0

funkdog1 5 years, 11 months ago

Wow. I wish I had time to worry about such worthless crap.

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says: So, rachaelisacancer:.Do you also agree that polygamist, and people who want group marriage and incestuous marriage should not have their rights denied?-------------------------------------------Well first of all I say let's stop marriage. Marriage is something you do in a church ordained by god or satan or whoever. As far as the tax breaks, property rights, etc. that have gone along with "marriage" (as it now stands), I believe members of a household who choose to share their lives (wealth, property, children, responsibility) should be allowed to do so without government interference or moral policing. Call it a union, call it a marriage, call it whatever you like. Just make sure all people are allowed the equal opportunity to participate in it. So yeah, if two old ladies who are cousins and share a house want to "get married" by law, I say go for it. If "polygamists" want to "get married" by law, I say go for it.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 11 months ago

none2: "If the word was that special and sacred, then we wouldn't use it to describe people who have divorced and remarried as that tarnishes not only the word "marriage" but also the participants, families, and any offspring from the original marriage." My gender is attested by "the appendage." I fell in love with someone without. ( I'm sure she was envious, but I'm quite sure she realized that it worked out for both of us. ) We were certified by the State and then decertified, as it were, at great expense to both of us. We drifted. We coalesced. Marriage rules!( True, the kids were left mystified... but mystification is good for the soul... especially young souls. Mystification rules! )

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

Kansas778 - I give up. I honestly don't know how to explain it any clearer. My example was meant to demonstrate what a null hypothesis is, but based on your response I can tell that my explanation went completely over your head. You can use statistics to test the impact of public policy. KU offers several classes that discuss this topic, maybe when you graduate high school you can enroll in some of them.Of course the rate of divorce before and after same-sex marriage could change for several reasons. This is why, in my hypothetical social research study I said that a statistically signficant finding would "offer support (not proof) of the hypothesis" (offered for illustration purposes only) that same-sex marriage impacts the rate of divorce. This hypothesis is not something I believe, I just needed a concrete example of a dependent variable.If the results do not show a statistically significant finding, then the null hypothesis is supported.Your statement of "You couldn't reject the null hypothesis because it would be impossible to tell what caused the change." is my proof that you completely misunderstand what a null hypothesis is. Please, just take 10 minutes to google null hypothesis before you embarrass yourself any further. While you are at it look up some studies conducted on the effects of public policy and read the Results section. Google Scholar or PubMed are a good place to start. My stats primer given for your benefit is not wrong. Go ahead, look it up. You obviously don't believe me. I look forward to your response after you have done a bit of homework.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

none2 - I agree completely. Furthermore, I support every person's right to marry and I applaud Canada's leaders for legalizing it.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

fuel, this sentence shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about."If the results do not show a statistically significant finding, then the null hypothesis is supported."No matter what the finding, you could not tell if it was statistically significant because you could not tell what caused any variation. How are you going to measure the variation that was caused solely by gay marraige and not other factors? You can't. It's impossible. You have no way of knowing what caused any observed variation, what about this don't you understand?What about this statement: "You can use statistics to test the impact of public policy"Straw man. Your posts are full of these logical fallacies and invective. In short, you are a fraud. But go ahead, post again, call me some names, make some straw man arguments and non-sequiturs, then top it off with a demand that I do some research because you can't explain your position well enough on your own.

0

kansas778 5 years, 11 months ago

"Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts." - Nikki GiovanniYour response to error is pompousness, what does that say about you?

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Witchfindergeneral: "Your hypothetical logic is off topic and better suited for philosophical debates, not pragmatic solutions to civil union rights."Are you the thought police, or do you just determine what may or may not be discussed. The topic is about the social effects of changing the definition of marriage. If one advocates for include some groups but excluding others they are hypocrites and likely bigots. You are not offering pragmatic solutions to the larger issue of who is allowed the right to marry."My point is that those lines between gay marriage and polygamy, etc. are not in fact (and in practice) arbitrary in nations like Canada. If I'm I hypocrite then I feel I'm in good company (our neighbors to the north)." - witchSo it is okay to be a hypocrite and a bigot if others agree with you? So it is okay for someone to be bigoted against same-sex marriage if others agree with them? Just b/c Canada allows one form of marriage and not others doesn't make them any more right than most state in the U.S. which do the same.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Jafs:"Also, the general feeling in your posts seems to favor quite a bit of "social control" on the part of the government which I find a bit frightening."Then you must not be a liberal. Liberals are all about social engineering (see Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton pressuring Freddie and Fannie to give loans to low income minorities) and "fixing" social problems using the government (conservatives believe most social problems can be fixed w/o government involvement).1. You mis-stated his/her point. Marriage doesn't "exist for the purpose of having children" it has been civically adopted to promote a stable society, encourage a perpetuation of the our civilization, and provide benefits and obligations to those who choose to enter. It is not just about a "demonstration of love/commitment." This can be done w/o a marriage and does not require government approval.2. Of course the states don't enforce monogamy, but marriage encourages monogamy which leads to social stability. Also, most states have "fault" and "no-fault" grounds for divorce, so infidelity can have negative financial consequences.3. People conforming to social norms is good if the outcome is good (the norm itself is not the good). Social norms are an important tool for society to self-regulate. The alternative is an endless number of laws to regulated every aspect of our behavior.4. Are you also of the opinion that changing the definition to allow polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage would be a good thing? Your 4 listed rights and benefits could easily apply to them as well.The government has many ways of affecting behavior including using the tax code. The government can provide tax breaks to people who purchased hybrid vehicles, etc. While this is not "equality" (the people who purchased non-hybrid vehicles wouldn't get the tax break) it is Constitutional because there is no right to a tax break. The government can also provide benefits to married couples even though it is not equal because marriage to any individual(s) is not a fundamental constitutional right. All laws discriminate.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rachelisacancer:You contradict yourself:"I say let's stop marriage," then you say; "Call it a union, call it a marriage, call it whatever you like. Just make sure all people are allowed the equal opportunity to participate in it." So are we stopping marriage or allowing it for everyone?"Marriage is something you do in a church ordained by god or satan or whoever." rachel You are confusing the marriage ceremony with a legal marriage. Marriage is a civic institution."As far as the tax breaks, property rights, etc. that have gone along with "marriage" (as it now stands), I believe members of a household who choose to share their lives (wealth, property, children, responsibility) should be allowed to do so without government interference or moral policing." - rachelImplementing this policy would definitely help women who have been abandoned by men who claim they will support them but after 20 years and after 5 kids leave with all the money. Yeah, the courts should definitely just leave them alone. Outlawing all marriages would be extremely detrimental to society and women in particular.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Witchfindergeneral:."Satirical and kansas- has same-sex marriage lead to civil rights for zoophiles, pedophiles, polygamists, etc. in Massachusetts, California, the UK, various other European nations, ect.?"I am not discussing real world application, I am discussing logic. Of course some societies can allow same-sex marriage and not polygamy, etc. just like some societies can allow opposite-sex marriage and not allow same-sex marriage. Of course lines can be drawn to include some and exclude others, but logically the lines between same-sex marriage and polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage are arbitrary. So you are a hypocrite if you don't support polygamy, etc, but do support same-sex marriage.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Liberty_One:You also contradict yourself. "The author speaks about the property rights of women who stay at home while the husband works-what about the property rights of the partner in a gay couple that stays at home?" then you state; "Furthermore, as a general policy we should look with disfavor on any government interference in the personal affairs of individuals."So which is it, should the government change the definition of marriage to prevent this alleged social harm by enforcing property rights via the courts proclaiming the couple had a common law marriage; or should it not allow same-sex marriage to prevent interference with their relationship?"Currently, if their partner dies intestate, then they have no rights to any of the property that would normally be shared with the spouse." - libertySolution: write a willThis intestate protection is also not afforded to non-marital couples who have lived together for a long period of time. Also, doesn't this also apply to polyamist, etc. Aren't their property rights being denied?"There is also the very real liberty interest that is being harmed" - libertyUmmm: you never described what the liberty interest is being harmed. Also, liberty is freedom from the government, not requiring it to legitimize and provide benefits to any relationship you deem it should.

0

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Ok, I'll give it a try.There are many assumptions in your original post and subsequent arguments which are not shared by myself and others.1. Marriage exists for the purpose of having children.2. The state does and should enforce monogamy.3. People conform to social norms (which is apparently a good thing in your book).4. If we allow gay couples to marry, it will affect our social definition/understanding of marriage in a negative way.I would like to respond to these, and also offer some ideas about how/why allowing gay couples to marry will possibly have a positive effect on our society.Also, the general feeling in your posts seems to favor quite a bit of "social control" on the part of the government which I find a bit frightening.1. Many straight couple marry with no plans to have children, and many in fact do not have children. Marriage is entered into by different people for different reasons. If I had to encapsulate it, I would think that it is a symbolic demonstration of love/commitment.2. The state does not enforce monogamy. The statistics on extra-marital affairs are staggering. Also, most states have a "no-fault" divorce policy, so that adultery during the marriage does not have negative financial consequences.3. While many are affected by social norms, many others act more independently. Also, social norms differ from subgroup to subgroup within our society. If you are a pagan, your norms are quite different from a corporate executive, for example. And, I'm not sure it's a good thing when it does exist.4. I don't agree that it would change our definitions in a negative way, in fact I believe the opposite. Of course, this is a matter of opinion. Some certainly believe that we were better off before women and black people gained equality. More broadly, our Constitution is a clear and dramatic statement of belief in individual rights and equality. When people are interested in enforcing social norms, then expanding equality is often seen as dangerous. Also, our norms change over time - slavery is ok, then not ok, women shouldn't vote, then they can, etc.If gay couples are allowed to marry, and share the same legal rights/benefits and straight couples, I think it might affect society positively in the following ways:1. It would be consistent with our founding principles of equality and individual rights.2. Many gay couples would be allowed to adopt/foster children, and thus many children currently in our less-than-ideal systems would have access to loving families.3. It might change our norms by expanding them, and replacing outdated "nuclear family" ideas with the idea that marriages are about love and commitment.4. It would certainly reduce the stress among the gay/lesbian population, who would not feel like second class citizens.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04:"I don't really understand the question." LS04 at 12:18 on 10/22Sorry for the delayed response. You stated: "A changing definition does not induce changes in behavior." Let me attempt to clarify my previous argument. Your statement is incorrect because definitions do affect behavior. If the definition of homicide is now: blogging on the LJWorld online, then this would likely change the behavior of many people.

0

fuel_for_the_fire 5 years, 11 months ago

"The capacity to learn is a gift; the ability to learn is a skill; the willingness to learn is a choice." - UnknownIt saddens me, as well as frightens me a little, that some poeple make such poor choices.I used to think the antiquated system of the electoral college was no longer neccessary. Surely, in this day and age, every person is exposed to sufficient information so as to make an informed decision. Now, I'm not so sure.Kansas778 - read a book

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Mom_of_three:."Polygamy and multiple marriages have nothing to do with two people who care about each other."Polygamy is about two people caring for each other, however it is simultaneous (as opposed to most people who get married multiple times who are "two people who care about each other" consecutively). Group marriage is about "people caring about each other" but the distinction between "two" and "more than two" is arbitrary and less a justification to discriminate against legalizing this relationship than the justification to discriminate against same-sex marriage between of gender. It is easy to draw lines. If you feel justified in drawing an arbitrary line at "two" then how can you not be a hypocrite when you criticize others for advocating drawing the line at whether the "two" are of the same gender? Your arguments are based in bigotry and fear."And same sex marriage is about two unrelated people, which incestous marriage is not." - mom_of_threeAgain, the discrimination of "unrelated" is similar to the discrimination against same-sex couples. It is an arbitrary distinction and is not a sufficient justification to support same-sex marriage and deny the same right to people who advocate for incestuous marriage.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsoun04:."No, it's not about how big someone "thinks" a change is, it's about how far a departure the revised definition is from the original."-----------------------------------Wrong, it is about whom the change affects and how much. If blogging were illegal it wouldn't affect people who didn't blog at all. Even small changes can have a large impact on a small number of people (case in point changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage would have a large affect on homosexuals). However, this change does'nt only impact homosexuals, it has an impact on society as a whole; similar to (but not exactly like) if polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage were allowed. I think the only real disagreement most people have is the whether there will be net positive or a net negative social consequences.==================================="However, if we insist on keeping marriage, then I have no problem with polygamous, incestuous, or homosexual marriage, so long as ALL involved parties are adults that understand and consent to the relationship."------------------------I already commented on the negative social consequences of abolishing marriage in my post at 10:17. Also, you have no problem with the dilution of marriage?==================================="You can't jump ship to a discussion of legal definitions to suit your argument."---------------------------At that point you were making an analogy between changing the statutory definition of marriage to the definition of homicide, so I compared apples to apples. We were discussing the general definition of homicide when talking about whether changing a definitions has any impact on behavior. (You changed the application of the definition homicide, I was just adjusting)============================="seeing as how marriage is essentially an intimate, union between two individuals, not two opposite-sex individuals."--------------------Again, I understand that you define marriage differently, however most jurisdictions define it between one man and one woman. If one is advocating for a change one must have a legitimate reason. Marriage is much more than just an unenforced commitement between two individuals (if you want it enforced then government must recognize it). Also your new definition doesn't apply for polygamy and group marriage.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

"staff04 (Anonymous) says: Ok, Satirical, here we go. Your response was predictably based in your religious values."When did I claim I had religious values? Even if I did why do you assume my religious values affect my logic? Please address my arguments and avoid personal attacks and assuming my motivations."Yes, it currently is a civic institution. That doesn't make it right. The right to abortion is a civic institution, so I guess you agree with that as well." staff04We are talking about what is legal, not what is right. I am making the argument that to advocate for same-sex marriage and not also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage is hypocritical since one cannot make a non-arbitrary distinction between them. "What evidence, that doesn't come from your magic book, indicates that government sanction of a religious institution has had any role whatsoever in promoting a stable society?" staff04I don't make arguments from, nor do I know of any "magic book."

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04:"We're not talking about redefining marriage to mean "having sex with children" or some other complete departure from the current definition"I never said we were"I think that a small change, or modification, in a definition, is unlikely to affect behavior change, whereas a major re-defining of a work might." LS04So your theory is that if one person thinks it is a big change it might affect their behavior, but if others think it is a minor change it may not? "Under the change we're discussing, marriage would still be defined as a committed relationship between two adults that bestows certain rights." - LS04I understand the change you are discussing, my question is why change a definition because it discriminates, but change the definition only so far to still allow it to discriminate? Is it because Hollywood isn't advocating for allowing polygamist, etc to marry?"One could argue that adding same sex couples to marriage isn't really a change in definition at all." LS04First; the definition of a criminal homicide varies from jurisdictions. The same is true for the definition of marriage.Second; the statutory definition of marriage is Kansas between one man and one woman. So one would have to change the definition to allow same-sex marriage.Third; your proposed definition of marriage would allow polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage.Fourth; marriage is not a contract it is an agreement which becomes a status.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04:"This is not a "redefinition", but making something illegal of which the definition is unchanged."----------------------Now you are just being obtuse and trying to avoid being proven wrong. When I said "if blogging were illegal" it was obviously in the context of changing homicide to now mean blogging.==========================="Yes, but not on their behavior."--------------------------Of course it would affect their behavior. Some would make the choice to be married. Making different choices is affecting behavior. I have never alleged allowing same-sex marriage would change the other behaviors you mentioned.============================="How, specifically, do you think allowing homosexual marriage will change the_behavior_of the rest of society?"-----------------------Well first if same-sex marriage were allowed, polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage would likely follow since there is no non-arbitrary way to distinguish them. This would lead to a dissolution of marriage where marriage had no meaning which would mitigate and the benefits marriage currently provides to a stable society. Actually let me just provide a few links.http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2004/same_sex.htm=============================="The analogy doesn't quite work, because there is no difference between the statutory and generic definitions of homicide"------------------------Please tell me you are joking unless you have compared the definition of homicide you provided with every jurisdiction in the U.S. ================================="That's kind of what I'm getting at when I point out that this "change" in the definition of marriage isn't really a change in the definition, but rather a change in the legal implications."----------------------One cannot separate what marriage is from the legal definition since in order to have a marriage it must be legal. Marriage by definition must have a legal element since it is a civic institution created by laws. As I stated before; marriage is not just a private transaction between two individuals, it is social institution and therefore requires social (government) approval. It has social, symbolic and legal significance.=========================="No, not ME, that is how it is defined. It is the statutory definition that has departed from or "enhanced" the true definition."---------------------Are you Plato all of a sudden? Did you find this "true definition" of marriage in the realm of forms? Again, marriage is only what government says it is since it is a civic institution.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Liberty_one"Allowing same-sex marriage is not interference. Interference is hindering, obstructing, or impeding." Allowing same-sex marriage impedes and obstructs not having same-sex marriage, and is a change in the definition of marriage. (Do we want to get into a semantics debate?"Currently the government interferes because same-sex marriage is obstructed by law." - libertyThe government is not interfering it is optioning not to sanction. Polygamy is illegal, and therefore one could conclude there is government inteference. Same-sex marriage isn't illegal it just isn't legally recognized. Is the government interfering when it doesn't recognize (legally enforce) a promise I made to meet my wife at 3:00? "The person is already dead, thus it's not a solution because it's impossible to write a will after you have died." - libertyThen marriage wouldn't mitigate your alleged problem because marrying a dead person isn't legal either. Are we going to continue playing games or realize we were both talking about solutions prior to the hypothetical decedent's death?"And yes, liberty is freedom from the government, and currently the government imposes restrictions on who you can choose to enter into the agreement with." liberty Wrong, the government doesn't restrict it just doesn't recognize all agreements. If same-sex couples wanted to make a separate contract that wasn't marriage, the government would recognize it."the government should not be in the business of determining which relationships are "legitimate" and which aren't:if they are of age to make legally binding agreements, then they should be able to freely make that agreement." liberty Again you contradict yourself. You claim the government should legitimize any relationship, but then put conditions on when it should legitimize ("if they are of age"). How is this any different than me saying; the government should not be in the business of determining which relationship are legitimate and which aren't; if they are of age, and of opposite genders? Also we are talking about more than just a contract. A marriage is not just a private transaction between two individuals, it is social institution and therefore requires social (government) approval. It has social, symbolic and legal significance."When the government determines which relationships are legitimate, then that is not freedom from the government, that is government interference in private decisions." - libertyNo more than providing tax advantages to those who purchase hybrid vehicles. Also, as stated previously it is not government interference.

0

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Also to your argument that all marriages should be dissolved. "Twelve leading family scholars recently summarized the research literature this way: "Marriage is an important social good associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike. . . . [W]hether American society succeeds or fails in building a healthy marriage culture is clearly a matter of legitimate public concern." Among their conclusions:ô¹ Marriage increases the likelihood that children enjoy warm, close relationships with parents.ô¹ Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.ô¹ Children raised outside of intact married homes are more likely to divorce or become unwed parents themselves.ô¹ Marriage reduces child poverty.ô¹ Divorce increases the risk of school failure for children, and reduces the likelihood that they will graduate from college and achieve high status jobs.ô¹ Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms.ô¹ Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality.ô¹ Children from intact married homes have lower rates of substance abuse.ô¹ Divorce increases rates of mental illness and distress in children, including the risk of suicide.ô¹ Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes.ô¹ Married women are less likely to experience domestic violence than cohabiting and dating women.ô¹ Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.They conclude, "Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women, and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and high-conflict or violent marriages.""I would provide the link but it leads to a pdf and dont want the comment removed. Feel free to independently verify this information.

0

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

And, the current set of "anti-gay-marriage" statutes and amendments are the ones defining marriage narrowly.The California Supreme Court recently overturned anti-gay marriage laws with the basic argument I would have made, that marriage is a fundamental right and there exist no strong enough reasons to forbid gay couples from marriage.And, again, the easiest way to solve this problem would be to remove all legal advantages from marriage. Then it wouldn't be an issue of this sort at all. Individuals could create their own definitions/create their own contracts.As long as it entails legal benefits, those should be available to gay couples as well.

0

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical,I believe somewhere in the lengthy post/thread was a statement that marriage existed primarily in order to have/raise children. I don't have the time/energy to find that.If marriage encouraged monogamy, then the statistics on extra-marital affairs would not be so discouraging.If states do have "fault" divorce, it is certainly possible that adultery could result in financial loss, but it would have to be fought out in court, and would probably be very ugly on both sides. The accusing spouse would probably have to prove their claims.Do we have a stable society right now?It seems to me the conversation hinges on whether one believes that the government should be promoting/encouraging/mandating a certain kind of social "stability" or not.I believe that our founding principles were largely oriented in the direction of promoting individual freedoms.Loving vs. Virginia held that marriage was a "fundamental right".Whenever societal norms change, it is threatening to some - before slavery was abolished, I'm sure similar arguments were made about the stable society of the time and how well it worked, for example.And yes, I have no problem with polygamy or group marriage. Incest is a little different to me - the original prescriptions against it probably had to do with how inbreeding weakened the genetic strains over time. This is less of a concern today, but not eliminated.The basic premise that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a wide variety of arrangements, agreements, and contracts seems sound to me.All of your arguments above about marriage would suggest to me that allowing more of our citizens to enter into that kind of relationship would result in a positive outcome.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 10 months ago

gramma: "Substitute interracial for gay and it's still the same arguement."No, it's not.

0

grammaddy 5 years, 10 months ago

I've been following the gay marriage issue for some time and it still brings to mind a time when interracial marriage was banned. Substitute interracial for gay and it's still the same arguement. I can't believe that California passed proposition 8. How do you amend a constitution to EXCLUDE a particular segment of the population??! As I've always said, if you really want to protect the institution of marriage, BAN DIVORCE!!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.