The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Wow there were a few pages in this thread where the unintentional comedy was off the scale. Too bad it had to turn back into another boring Prop 8 thread.

[Solon]

At the risk of sounding simplistic (and I am sure YOhio will not hesitate to observe that I am, anyway), the reason we don't just go out and say "vote for Prop 8 because it's God's will" is the same reason we don't say we're opposed to stealing because it is against the 10 commandments or that we oppose prostitution because God forbids that as well. Yes, if you love the Daily Universe writer's point, you will respond, "Well, stealing and prostitution are different because there are societal consequences from those activities." (Libertarians will fight you hard on whether prostitution should be outlawed.)

Well ... now aren't we back to the same argument: that same-sex marriage produces undesirable consequences? The difference is that a great many people who support same-sex marriage (and probably the majority of those who post here) are absolutely convinced that there simply are no negative societal consequences from such marriages, so no rational argument can be made against it. I think that argument is deeply ironic because it is so, well, irrational. Many otherwise thoughtful people here have said that opponents of same-sex marriage are "delusional," or bigoted, or simply behind the times.

The honest-to-goodness bottom line here is that this is an issue on which reasonable, thoughtful people disagree in good faith and for good reason. I am continually amazed at the lack of appreciation for that point here, and the certainty with which the opposite point is of view is pressed.

OK, I'm done. Fire away, everyone.

In my opinion, the necessity of attaching a rationale to divine orders is a fairly recent phenomenon. Today, we like to say things like "and it's a good thing God ordered the Israelites not to eat shellfish because of food-poisoning dangers, and ordered them to circumcise their young boys because of medical concerns."

Ancient Israel didn't sit around trying to justify why God ordered what he did. They just did it before he smote them back to the stone age.

This modern need to rationalize the will of God seems highly hubristic to me, as if we moderns are so smart that now we can discover why God does what he does. I kind of think it's beyond our ken.*

The rationales put forth about the ramifications to family structures, the raising of children, legal issues for churches, etc. are mostly speculative and often based in social sciences. [Good grief! Can we really trust anything a social scientist says?!!!!] The research on these topics is riddled with ideology and agenda on both sides of the issue; it's probably safe to say that we simply don't know all of the long-term ramifications and consequences (although Spain has had legalized gay marriage for over a decade).

But I'm sorry you're taking the martyr's role in all of this, my Ute brother. I respect your right to be opposed to same-sex marriage, but I don't really buy all the arguments you - and the churches- have put forth so far. But I recognize the sincerity of your efforts and the validity of your beliefs. People on both sides of this issue are standing up for what they believe in and, while I think most of us around here have made up our minds one way or the other, it's worthwhile to remember the merits of open and thoughtful discussion.

*the use of "ken" is sponsored by Green Lantern.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's the style, man, not the message. It was as if I saw a big sloppy PDA, with a little tongue, and I couldn't help but bust out an 'Oh Brother!' I'll just scoot along...

Yeah, I gave him way too much tongue on that one. Sorry everybody.

[YOhio]

In my opinion, the necessity of attaching a rationale to divine orders is a fairly recent phenomenon. Today, we like to say things like "and it's a good thing God ordered the Israelites not to eat shellfish because of food-poisoning dangers, and ordered them to circumcise their young boys because of medical concerns."

Ancient Israel didn't sit around trying to justify why God ordered what he did. They just did it before he smote them back to the stone age.

This modern need to rationalize the will of God seems highly hubristic to me, as if we moderns are so smart that now we can discover why God does what he does. I kind of think it's beyond our ken.*

The rationales put forth about the ramifications to family structures, the raising of children, legal issues for churches, etc. are mostly speculative and often based in social sciences. [Good grief! Can we really trust anything a social scientist says?!!!!] The research on these topics is riddled with ideology and agenda on both sides of the issue; it's probably safe to say that we simply don't know all of the long-term ramifications and consequences (although Spain has had legalized gay marriage for over a decade).

But I'm sorry you're taking the martyr's role in all of this, my Ute brother. I respect your right to be opposed to same-sex marriage, but I don't really buy all the arguments you - and the churches- have put forth so far. But I recognize the sincerity of your efforts and the validity of your beliefs. People on both sides of this issue are standing up for what they believe in and, while I think most of us around here have made up our minds one way or the other, it's worthwhile to remember the merits of open and thoughtful discussion.

*the use of "ken" is sponsored by Green Lantern.

blahblahblah...I'm Solon and I know all this stuff the olden days in Greece and Rome and all I ever want to do is talk about it...blahblahblah.

[Solon]

blahblahblah...I'm Solon and I know all this stuff the olden days in Greece and Rome and all I ever want to do is talk about it...blahblahblah.

.

[LA Ute]

In my opinion, the necessity of attaching a rationale to divine orders is a fairly recent phenomenon. Today, we like to say things like "and it's a good thing God ordered the Israelites not to eat shellfish because of food-poisoning dangers, and ordered them to circumcise their young boys because of medical concerns."

Ancient Israel didn't sit around trying to justify why God ordered what he did. They just did it before he smote them back to the stone age.

This modern need to rationalize the will of God seems highly hubristic to me, as if we moderns are so smart that now we can discover why God does what he does. I kind of think it's beyond our ken.*

The rationales put forth about the ramifications to family structures, the raising of children, legal issues for churches, etc. are mostly speculative and often based in social sciences. [Good grief! Can we really trust anything a social scientist says?!!!!] The research on these topics is riddled with ideology and agenda on both sides of the issue; it's probably safe to say that we simply don't know all of the long-term ramifications and consequences (although Spain has had legalized gay marriage for over a decade).

But I'm sorry you're taking the martyr's role in all of this, my Ute brother. I respect your right to be opposed to same-sex marriage, but I don't really buy all the arguments you - and the churches- have put forth so far. But I recognize the sincerity of your efforts and the validity of your beliefs. People on both sides of this issue are standing up for what they believe in and, while I think most of us around here have made up our minds one way or the other, it's worthwhile to remember the merits of open and thoughtful discussion.

That last sentence will give me enough warm fuzzies to make it through today, at least. Having said that, I still think you are all godless Communists.

[Portland Ute]

The research on these topics is riddled with ideology and agenda on both sides of the issue; it's probably safe to say that we simply don't know all of the long-term ramifications and consequences (although Spain has had legalized gay marriage for over a decade).

Spain has not had legalized gay marriage for over a decade. It's barely been 5 years.

I don't know that it really adds anything to this discussion, but I thought I'd add this if for no other reason than clarification.

[LA Ute]

Spain has not had legalized gay marriage for over a decade. It's barely been 5 years.

I don't know that it really adds anything to this discussion, but I thought I'd add this if for no other reason than clarification.

Thanks. I just enjoy seeing that someone knows more than Solon about something like that.

[Solon]

Thanks. I just enjoy seeing that someone knows more than Solon about something like that.

This is right. I thought it was in the 90s but it wasn't that long ago.

(I appreciate the backhanded compliment. For the record, I'm often wrong. And I'm open to changing my mind too.)

Did any country legalize it in the 90s? Maybe I'm confusing with what went on in Hawaii.

At any rate, it further underscores the point that we have yet to see the long-term social ramifications.

[bluegoose]

This is right. I thought it was in the 90s but it wasn't that long ago.

(I appreciate the backhanded compliment. For the record, I'm often wrong. And I'm open to changing my mind too.)

Did any country legalize it in the 90s? Maybe I'm confusing with what went on in Hawaii.

At any rate, it further underscores the point that we have yet to see the long-term social ramifications.

Here is an old-ish article from 2004 that talks about how heterosexual marriage has been affected in Scandinavia since gay marriage was made legal, first in Denmark in 1989. I'm not sure if the numbers have changed much in the last 6 years.

[wally]

I don't think it's that simple. I think it's more like, "We have yet to see how it can have negative consequences, especially given that under current law homosexuals can adopt, receive spousal benefits, and even inherit capital from their partners."

From a strictly secular/political standpoint gay marriage is a full-scale social experiment. My understanding of full scale social expereiments is that they take a LOOONNGGG time to generate the emperical data set from which to judge the net effect(s). I am thinking that it probably takes much more time than any policies have been in place. At a full-scale level, there is no going back to how it used to be either.

Each side of this debate is betting the other side will be less of a net benefit to society. Each cites their own rationale. No side has a stranglehold on emperical evidence yet. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have open dialog and debate over these controversial issues without shaming each other, or using emotion as a crutch.

This is also why there should be more engineers in congress, because we they are not impaired by emotion.

They should be appointed. That is all.

[RobinFinderson]

From a strictly secular/political standpoint gay marriage is a full-scale social experiment. My understanding of full scale social expereiments is that they take a LOOONNGGG time to generate the emperical data set from which to judge the net effect(s). I am thinking that it probably takes much more time than any policies have been in place. At a full-scale level, there is no going back to how it used to be either.

Each side of this debate is betting the other side will be less of a net benefit to society. Each cites their own rationale. No side has a stranglehold on emperical evidence yet. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have open dialog and debate over these controversial issues without shaming each other, or using emotion as a crutch.

This is also why there should be more engineers in congress, because we they are not impaired by emotion.

They should be appointed. That is all.

All of this talk about whether or not gay marriage is going to hurt anyone or not is just so totally freaking beside the point. Gay people should be able to marry because they are American Citizens who want to marry. This is about FREEDOM, not some engineered Utopian idea in which gay people aren't allowed to marry or adopt. We expand this freedom because it is the right thing to do. If there are pluses and minuses, we accept them both, not as the byproduct of some engineered super plan by the people who are smarter than us, but as the surpluses and deficits of liberty.

[il Padrino Ute]

From a strictly secular/political standpoint gay marriage is a full-scale social experiment. My understanding of full scale social expereiments is that they take a LOOONNGGG time to generate the emperical data set from which to judge the net effect(s). I am thinking that it probably takes much more time than any policies have been in place. At a full-scale level, there is no going back to how it used to be either.

Each side of this debate is betting the other side will be less of a net benefit to society. Each cites their own rationale. No side has a stranglehold on emperical evidence yet. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have open dialog and debate over these controversial issues without shaming each other, or using emotion as a crutch.

This is also why there should be more engineers in congress, because we they are not impaired by emotion.

They should be appointed. That is all.

If there are lots of engineers in Congress, who will drive the freight trains?

[wally]

If there are lots of engineers in Congress, who will drive the freight trains?

Robots. Robots built by engineers.

[creekster]

All of this talk about whether or not gay marriage is going to hurt anyone or not is just so totally freaking beside the point. Gay people should be able to marry because they are American Citizens who want to marry. This is about FREEDOM, not some engineered Utopian idea in which gay people aren't allowed to marry or adopt. We expand this freedom because it is the right thing to do. If there are pluses and minuses, we accept them both, not as the byproduct of some engineered super plan by the people who are smarter than us, but as the surpluses and deficits of liberty.

Cute but meaningless. We limit liberty all the time. You are describing anarchy (at best). We may debate whether liberty in this instance should or should not be limited, but the rationale you are urging here wont form the basis for any decision on the topic.