For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I beg you to take a look at what's going on in Massachusetts and ask yourself honestly whether you think this would be a good development nationwide.
Here's one item among many: [emphasis in the original]
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
- Comment (183)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Pseudodionysius:There is a great deal of data to show that two-parent households work better than single-parent households.
Speaking strictly for heterosexuals, there is a marked difference between domestic abuse statistics for heterosexual married couples and those in which the couple is not married. In both cases, they would be considered to be "parents". So the mere fact of there being two parents in the house, doesn't guarantee the same outcomes. I'm assuming that these statistics are stratified for biological parents, divorced and remarried, divorced and cohabitating, so called "common-law" marriages, etc. and this is only on the heterosexual side. · 16 minutes ago
That's really interesting. But isn't it an argument for the positive effects of the institution? And for allowing those who are co-habitating anyway to benefit from its effects?
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
For my part, I was referring to ~Paules assertion earlier that studies showed an increase in juvenile deliquency resulting from absent fathers. He was using this data to suggest that the sex of the parents was paramount. I believe it points more clearly to the effects of having only one parent.
But I am admittedly a layman in these matters. My reading is incomplete. What I do have (and again believe to be relevant despite those that would dismiss it,) is direct experience with same-sex families. Each of my three kids attends school with multiple same-sex families and I see enough of the practice of their parenting to regard assertions regarding damage to their children as laughable.
In my personal experience parenting skill matters far more and that has very little to do with sexual orientation.
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Traditional families are hanging on by a thread, and there is ample data to support this: just look at divorce and illegitimacy rates in the U.S. and especially in Europe.
I agree the case against SSM is sometimes overstated in doom-and-gloom terms. Personally I think no-fault divorce is the root cause of the decline of marriage in our society, and the impact of SSM will be very minor by comparison.
But I think that it is indisputable that traditional marriage is in serious decline already, and that animates much of the passion behind the issue. A cold that would be a minor inconvenience to someone young and healthy could lead to pneumonia and death for an elderly man with weak lungs.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Isn't this exactly what you are asking for? Just switch out Katie's name with yours and change immoral to moral.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O
Isn't this exactly what you are asking for? Just switch out Katie's name with yours and change immoral to moral. · 1 minute ago
Yes. But opponents of SSM seem unfortable stating as much outright. They want to engage in a discussion about the positive effects of marriage to society and how those will be corrupted if this line is crossed.
What makes my argument non-circular is that it is based at least in part on empirical evidence -- not from the media, but from my own personal experience raising children alongside these types of families. Katie and others want to dismiss this as insufficient or anecodotal. But I cannot.
I cannot dismiss the behavior as abberant when it has persisted through millennia. And I cannot withhold the sanction of the state and society when I see how beneficial the practice is.
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
The circular argument comes when you ask why homosexual marriage is wrong, how it harms society, opponents simply know it to be true based on some fundamental truth that requires no supporting data.
A circular argument is one that proves its own premise. I don't think that term applies here.
As for supporting data, I think the disconnect is that you are trying to turn a moral argument into a sociological argument. I'm reminded of the story told on the recent podcast where the family dog gets hit by a car, so the family cooks and eats it for dinner.
What data could you possibly cite to prove this is immoral? Dog meat is a perfectly safe and healthy source of protein, and in this case, free. Burying it would be wasteful. And yet, most people realize eating the family pet is wrong, even if they have trouble explaining why.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 9:17pmMay '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Joseph Stanko
But I think that it is indisputable that traditional marriage is in serious decline already, and that animates much of the passion behind the issue. A cold that would be a minor inconvenience to someone young and healthy could lead to pneumonia and death for an elderly man with weak lungs. · 15 minutes ago
But the advocates of SSM are valuing marriage highly. They are seeking what it represents and applying it to their own relationships. As it becomes more socially acceptable, they are embracing it. It wouldn't be the first time, but gays are making marriage cool.
Is it only a fad? Maybe. But not among the middle-aged gay people that I know.
This does not weaken the institution, it strengthens it. This is not a world of baby-daddies and single moms with kids sired by multiple fathers. This is about people that never thought they could aspire to the institution asking to be included in it -- raising it up, esteeming it highly. This is a positive turn in the prospects for the institution.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Joseph Stanko
Trace Urdan
The circular argument comes when you ask why homosexual marriage is wrong, how it harms society, opponents simply know it to be true based on some fundamental truth that requires no supporting data.
A circular argument is one that proves its own premise. I don't think that term applies here.
As for supporting data, I think the disconnect is that you are trying to turn a moral argument into a sociological argument. I'm reminded of the story told on the recent podcast where the family dog gets hit by a car, so the family cooks and eats it for dinner.
What data could you possibly cite to prove this is immoral? Dog meat is a perfectly safe and healthy source of protein, and in this case, free. Burying it would be wasteful. And yet, most people realize eating the family pet is wrong, even if they have trouble explaining why. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
I have no problem with this example. But I find cowardly the insistence that the "defense of marriage" rests on anything other than a negative judgement regarding the morality of homosexuality.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
I agree with what you say about divorce Joseph. Divorce has already changed the traditional meaning of the word marriage. In our culture marriage really just means a "love match". This is why I think gay couples should be able to have civil marriages. Civil unions may be a more palatable term, but it's really just semantics. Where I get troubled is when we start talking about forcing Churches to perform sacramental marriages, or the idea that the government should be in the business of deciding what people can believe is sinful or not.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 9:30pmApr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Joseph Stanko
2 hours ago
Are we sure those women are really free to choose to leave those relationships?
Apr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O: I agree with what you say about divorce Joseph. Divorce has already changed the traditional meaning of the word marriage. In our culture marriage really just means a "love match". This is why I think gay couples should be able to have civil marriages. Civil unions may be a more palatable term, but it's really just semantics. Where I get troubled is when we start talking about forcing Churches to perform sacramental marriages, or the idea that the government should be in the business of deciding what people can believe is sinful or not. · 31 minutes ago
Edited 29 minutes ago
The US government could not force a Religion to perform a religious ceremony, I think they would loose that supreme court case. On the other hand a religious institution can not demand that it be above criticism of its religious practices and doctrines.
The problem with marriage is that its religious and non-religious forms are so intertwined, by the fact that government would recognize a religious ceremony as legally binding. This problem could be solved by just not removing the government from recognizing any relationships in any way.
Apr '11
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
Joseph Stanko
What data could you possibly cite to prove this is immoral? Dog meat is a perfectly safe and healthy source of protein, and in this case, free. Burying it would be wasteful. And yet, most people realize eating the family pet is wrong, even if they have trouble explaining why. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
I have no problem with this example. But I find cowardly the insistence that the "defense of marriage" rests on anything other than a negative judgement regarding the morality of homosexuality. · 44 minutes ago
I think the lesson of the dog example is that there is a lot of our "morality" that is based on pure and irrational impulses. We could all think it "wrong" to eat Fluffy, but would it be right to pass a law to prevent the one odd family from doing so?
Jun '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Valiuth
The US government could not force a Religion to perform a religious ceremony, I think they would loose that supreme court case.
I don't think the federal government can force me to buy insurance, either, but I'd rather not back myself into a corner where the whims of Anthony Kennedy are the sole factor preventing the state from forcing the doctrine of "marriage equality" on churches.
And should Obama win re-election, and one or more conservative justices retire or die... we already know this administration thinks health care mandates trump religious liberty, why shouldn't they apply the same logic to marriage laws?
Sep '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Its an argument that in the case of heterosexual couples, the long term data is compellingly clear. Since by definition a male or female homosexual couple can not bear a child (I'm speaking biologically), then we are speaking of a third party being introduced into the mix (either through adoption of another couple's baby, IVF, surrogate motherhood, or the step parenthood of a child of one of the partners).
Sep '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
The only institution we have under long term study is the heterosexual institution. If you're arguing that nothing inherent in the sexual biology of the parents is unique to heterosexual coupling, and thereby offers no unique benefit to children of that couple (whether biological or adoptive) then I don't see a compelling reason that someone couldn't argue that Three Men and a Baby makes sense as well. Since I don't believe you're advocating for a conjugal litmus test, then I don't see how its possible to argue against some kind of live in surrogate nanny type arrangement, whereby Steve helps out Bill so he can spend more time with Garry. Being the equitable individuals they are, Garry and Bill may feel strongly that Steve deserves some type of legal protection even though he sleeps in the basement and votes Republican.
Sep '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Next you'll be telling me the government is trying to decide which Churches can offer insurance coverage or not. Oh, wait.
Sep '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
At Nuremberg they had to invoke natural law principles to prosecute because the Nazis had taken the precaution of making sure that what they did was constitutional and therefore legal.
May '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Is it possible to believe homosexual acts are sinful and support gay marriage anyway? This is where I find myself. I have a gay brother who recently asked his partner to marry him. I support them. Why? I believe committing to a exclusive bond of mutual love and support will be a better way of life for their bodies, hearts, minds and yes, even souls, than bouncing around alone from one random lover to the next. Like Trace, I even hope that "domestication" in the gay community will be good for society as a whole. I believe homosexual acts are sinful, and it's not something I take lightly. I have studied theology, natural law,and philosophy trying to find myself an out. My brother knows this and respects my ability to reason. He knows I love him. I do not hate him or fear him or think he is destroying society. He also knows I do not think his particular sins and struggles are somehow more horrifying than my own, or any other fallen and flawed person's on this planet. If anything, I think there are mitigating factors to homosexual sins. I pray it is so.
Aug '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Trace Urdan
I have no problem with this example. But I find cowardly the insistence that the "defense of marriage" rests on anything other than a negative judgment regarding the morality of homosexuality.
If you mean KatieVs, she's no coward.
She's said pretty clearly and repeatedly that homosex is sinful (I believe homosex is her word for homosexual activity as opposed to homosexual feelings that are not acted on) and that the only way a person who feels same-sex attraction avoids sin is by not acting on that attraction, at least not sexually. (I'd suppose "acting" on the attraction by sublimating the desire for another purpose is OK and even encouraged.)
KatieVs is not afraid to say that she believes homosexual activity is immoral.
Aug '10
Re: For Those Who Think SSM Is A "Distraction" Or A Minor Issue...
Katie O: Is it possible to believe homosexual acts are sinful and support gay marriage anyway? This is where I find myself....
...He also knows I do not think his particular sins and struggles are somehow more horrifying than my own, or any other fallen and flawed person's on this planet. If anything, I think there are mitigating factors to homosexual sins. I pray it is so.
This makes sense to me, though I haven't decided that homosexual activity is always sinful, and I cannot confidently support SSM -- in my opinion, we're probably too Statist right now to avoid having legal recognition of SSM threaten the liberties of a great many more people than the few who'd benefit from legal recognition of SSM.
However, would I give a SSM my full support? Absolutely. For basically the same reasons you gave. Whatever the status of homosexual sin, I cannot picture same-sex activity as uniquely sinful (as categorically more sinful than heterosexual promiscuity, for example), nor can I avoid seeing a SSM (even if SSM is logically a contradiction in terms) as being more virtuous (and healthier) than a chaotically promiscuous life.
Edited on May 17, 2012 at 2:19am