08 June 2006

More on Marriage

Yesterday the U.S. Senate cloture vote (effectively the vote to vote) on the Marriage Protection Amendment failed 49-48. The good news is, this isn't the first time such an amendment has come before the Senate, and it certainly wont be the last.

Critiques of the MPA run the gamut: some are fatuous (the so called "conservative case" for same-sex marriage, a chimera) , others quixotic (all you need is love!), many take a mysogamic tone (for example Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at NYU, who hopes that the understanding of marriage will break down completely), while still others are just flat ignorant (it wont directly affect my marriage!).

The gay lobby then works its puppet-master magic on Ted Kennedy and others, who cast MPA advocates as "bigots, radical, and narrow minded." This, despite the fact that six in 10 Americans oppose gay marriage, and according to the latest Gallup poll, a majority of whom also support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

As Dennis Prager explains, the liberal view of Republicans and conservatives holds that they are either "phonies or bad." That they could sincerely oppose redefining "the most important social structure of society...is inconceivable." Those who oppose are labeled bigots. He further explains that the inability of liberals to understand conservatives' views on marriage as anything more than bigotry or pandering is "part of a narcissism that characterizes much of the left." They are narcissistic in that they are unable to see the world through another persons eyes. Perhaps the most offensive example of this narcissistic world-view is liberals application of the word "radical" to religious or social conservatives.
To describe as "radical" those who wish to preserve the man-woman-based definition of marriage known to every civilization is to stand the word on its head. It is beyond intellectually dishonest--it is mendacity--to describe those who favor preserving the definition of marriage as "radical" rather than to so describe those who wish to change the gender-based definition of marriage for the first time in history. Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should at least have the honesty to admit that it is you who favors something radical.
But this is just another way for liberals and same-sex advocates to marginalize the issue and its advocates. It's right up there with "gas prices" as a favored way of "putting things in the proper perspective." Which is what type of perspective exactly? That gas prices are somehow more important than marriage?

There exists a certain idealistic libertarian strain that insists that the "right" to marriage is ingrained in the Constitution. William F. Buckley Jr. and Sheldon Kinsel point out that this isn't a civil rights issue at all. From Mr. Kinsel,
Society is not required to let anyone who wants to marry to do so, particularly if that would be harmful. To protect itself, society must and does impose significant restrictions on marriage, including those having to do with blood relationship and age. If there is any issue of rights at stake, it is only the legitimate right of society to protect a vital social institution. In this light, it is also clear that doing so certainly is not "writing discrimination into the Constitution," as the advocates frequently charge.
Additionally, efforts to associate the fight for same sex marriage to the Civil Rights movement has drawn the ire of some members of the gay community, to say nothing of the response from the African American community. The link to the women's suffrage movement is also specious. The monumental gain of that movement was the vote. Gays are allowed to vote, are they not?

The ignorant continue to sit on the sideline because they don't think court-imposed same-sex marriage will affect them while others are afraid of imposing their religious or moral values. Fine. Ignore the religious or moral aspect. The social imperative alone is enough to make rejection of same-sex marriage the only rational course.

To understand the impact of same-sex marriage on society we refer you to two important sources. The first is a body of work from a group of scholars associated with the Witherspoon Institute (hat tip: Morgan). Though the temptation to do the 30 minute Google search remains, I suggest taking the time to read the entire work.

It examines various societal threats to marriage and the threat of same-sex marriage in particular. Historians, political scientists, law professors, economists, sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, anthropologists, public policy experts--even professors of philosophy!--all sign off on a document that draws on extensive social scientific studies. Refer specifically to Section III, Evidence from the Social and Biological Sciences, heading "Four Threats to Marriage," sub point "Same-Sex Marriage." See also Section IV, Analysis from Political and Moral Philosophy: The Intrinsic Goods of Marriage. The evidence is there.

Among other things, they find that children reared by same-sex parents will have problems with everything from identity, sexuality, and attachments to kin. Same-sex marriage undercuts the idea of procreation being intrinsically connected to marriage and the idea that children need both a mother and father--thus "further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." It also erodes marital norms of sexual fidelity. Their strongest appeal comes in the final section, reproduced here:
But marriage cannot survive or flourish when the ideal of marriage is eviscerated. Radically different understandings of marriage, when given legal status, threaten to create a culture in which it is no longer possible for men and women to understand the unique goods that marriage embodies: the fidelity between men and women, united as potential mothers and fathers, bound to the children that the marital union might produce.

The law has a crucial place in sustaining this deeper understanding of marriage and its myriad human goods. The law is a teacher, instructing the young either that marriage is a reality in which people can choose to participate but whose contours individuals cannot remake at will, or teaching the young that marriage is a mere convention, so malleable that individuals, couples, or groups can choose to make of it whatever suits their desires, interests, or subjective goals of the moment.

The marriage culture cannot flourish in a society whose primary institutions--universities, courts, legislatures, religious institutions--not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice. The young will never learn what it means to get married and stay married, to live in fidelity to the spouse they choose and the children they must care for, if the social world in which they come of age treats marriage as fungible or insignificant.
Marriage is essential to society and provides economic utility far better than any second best alternative. According to their research, any breakdown in the familial unit will inevitably lead to increases in all problems associated with the breakdown of the family--well-documented in the families of minorities (father absent), single parent homes, and foster care.

There remains a group who call for a sort of same-sex marriage trial to be experimented in several states. The social science referred to by the study above cites only research from the United States and must make assumptions about the probable impact of codified same-sex marriage. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" by Stanley Kurtz answers what he calls the "key empirical question" of the gay marriage debate--"will same sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage?" Where the social scientists above had no empirical data from the U.S. on which to test their theories, Mr. Kurtz is able to go to Scandinavia, where same-sex marriages have been the norm since as early as 1989 (Denmark).

Recently, gay marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan (journalist) and William Eskridge Jr. (Yale law professor) reported on an unpublished study by Darren Spedale. Their conclusions based on this study held that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia had a positive impact on marriage, reversing the trend toward cohabitation, divorce, and single-parent families. That it was unpublished is significant because it means that the study has not gone through several levels of peer review. Prior to publication in a given discipline's journal, several professors in a that field typically review the study/paper. Once it has been cleared by the reviewers and cleaned of any errors in technique, analysis, grammar, etc. it is then published where its contents are debated for a number of years as the theories and assumptions begin to take shape. Mr. Spedale's study jumped both of those stages and went straight to the "accepted as fact" stage by the mainstream media.

As Mr. Kurtz points out, "the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties." How quickly same-sex marriage advocates will seize on convenient, if spurious research to support their claims.

With marriage so weak in Scandinavia, examination of demographic shifts must focus on the out-of-wedlock birthrate and the family dissolution rate. He explains the reason behind this:
cohabitating couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.
During the nineties--the period that same-sex marriage was supposed to have stabilized marriage as an institution--Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39-50 percent, Sweden's from 47 to 55 percent. "As out-of-wedlock childbearing pushes beyond 50 percent, it is reaching the toughest areas of cultural resistance." This has resulted in marriage becoming a minority phenomenon in turn causing it to lose the "critical mass required to have a socially normative force." In sum, marriage in Scandinavia has experienced a deep decline and "children [shoulder] the burden of rising rates of family dissolution." Mr. Kurtz cites gay marriage as the "mainspring" of the decline because of its obvious tendency to separate marriage from parenthood.

What exactly does this mean for the children, now forced to shoulder the burden of their parents decisions of convenience? A study of all children born in Stockholm in 1953 showed that parental breakup negatively impacted children's mental health. Another study done in 2003 discovered that children in single parent homes in Sweden "have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households."

Returning to the link between gay marriage, and the separation between marriage and parenthood, Mr. Kurtz states that,
as rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and it is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.
Once gay marriage was established in the Scandinavian countries, it "symbollically ratified" the passing of the link between marriage and parenthood. Gay marriage became one of the major factors leading to further increases in cohabitation, out-of-wedlock birthrates, and early divorce. The overall symbolic message of gay marriage and civil unions has been that "most any nontraditional family is just fine" and in this way, "individual choice trumps family form."

Henning Bech, one of Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinkers, completely dismisses as "implausible" the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy as suggested by the aforementioned "conservative case." According to Rune Halvorsen, a Norwegian sociologist, "many of Norway's gays imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their opposition to marriage itself." The goal for gays in Scandinavia was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality.

The result in Sweden is startling. Swedes marry less and have more children out-of-wedlock than any other industrialized nation.

It should come as no surprise that in America, the younger generation is more likely to favor gay marriage than their parents. This is related to another fact: "less than half of America's twentysomethings consider it wrong to bear children outside marriage." Though cohabitation is increasing in the United States, it has still not reached levels found in Europe. America's situation is similar to Norway before the advent of gay marriage. Religiosity is strong, out of marriage birthrate remains relatively low, while the majority opposes gay marriage. The similarities don't end there.
If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.
Were this to occur in America, it would result in rising rates of middle class family dissolution, continued separation of marriage from parenthood, and expansion of the American welfare state.

Typically this blog believes in leaving decisions like these to the states to decide separately, but judicial activism and the empirical effects of state-by-state loosening of divorce laws demands a different course of action. Plus, it's not as though such an amendment would have the same effect on democratically established state law as say, Roe v. Wade. Where Roe v. Wade overturned laws banning or partially banning abortion in a large number of states, such an amendment would only serve to affirm statutes established in 26 states and what citizens of 19 states have enshrined in their state constitutions.

Civil unions are not the great middle ground solution, put forward by "moderates." Scandinavian registered partnerships are exactly similar to Vermont-style civil unions. Mr. Kurtz has clearly shown that the "lesson of the Scandinavian experience is that even de facto same-sex marriage undermines marriage." And this would be the result of civil-unions as the laws and limitations distinguishing them from marriage as such would begin to be repealed.

Mr. Kurtz also speaks to the supposed link between Civil Rights and gay marriage.
The Scandinavian example also proves that gay marriage is not interracial marriage in a new guise. The miscegenation analogy was never convincing. There are plenty of reasons to think that, in contrast to race, sexual orientation will have profound effects on marriage. But with Scandinavia, we are well beyond the realm of even educated speculation. The post-gay marriage changes in the Scandinavian family are significant. This is not like the fantasy about interracial birth defects.
America cannot afford to experiment with same-sex marriage. What's more, doesn't need to. Scandinavia has already run the test and given us the important data. Same-sex marriage does not encourage marriage, it erodes the family. The breakdown of the family leads to a loss of goods associated with marriage and an increase in all the sorts of problems we read about in the newspaper everyday. Rising crime rates (including violent crime), illiteracy, drug use, increased incidence of high school drop-out, depression--all become more likely for children raised outside of the traditional family.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Social engineering. You realize this is what you are really implying in your article, don’t you?

But first of all, this is from your 'evidence':
"First, no one can definitively say at this point how children are affected by being reared by same-sex couples."

And you forgot to cite this: "But until more research is available, the jury is still out." (Section III from Princeton Principles, which ironically came right after one your quotes)

More importantly, Jacob, you are making one enormous assumption: Social order is more important than the freedom to marry whomever one wants to marry. By social order I mean to say the standard that your citations used to measure these social questions like children that drink earlier than other children, or the percentage of children that graduate from high school, etc.

If you base the same-sex marriage question on whether or not it increases the percentage children graduate from high school (Section III), then it will change your entire decision making paradigm for all social questions.

For instance, one should seriously consider genetic factors that might increase the percentage of children graduating from high school. If you were serious about your standard, you should only allow the most genetically qualified families to procreate, and dissolve or prohibit less qualified families to procreate.
If the greatest social order is the highest standard used to decide social questions, then one should be more serious and reorder (or revalue your social values) to that end, which can lead to very different social consequences than whether or not someone has the 'right' to marry another person of the same sex.

Anyways, thanks for the good discussion.

-Robot

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to slack off at work, not get fired! A bit long, Jake.

the narrator said...

while still others are just flat ignorant (it wont directly affect my marriage!).

Perhaps they are ignorant, but this ignorance exists because no cogent arguement has yet be given as to why gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages - unless one is scared that their spouse will leave them for a gay marriage.

...despite the fact that six in 10 Americans oppose gay marriage, and according to the latest Gallup poll, a majority of whom also support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Most people suffer from ignorance and intolerance. You fail to realize that appealing to the majority fails by the reductio ad absurdum arguement that the majority has recently supported racial and gender inequality, slavery, religious intolerance, and a plethora of other issues that today we fund repugnant.

the liberal view of Republicans and conservatives holds that they are either "phonies or bad."

It's because it's political pandering brought up during election years to divert attention away from the real issues. Orrin Hatch pulls the same nonsense with his election year flag burning amendment. You fail to acknowledge this for what it's worth.

Which is what type of perspective exactly? That gas prices are somehow more important than marriage?

It's because gas-prices threaten the family much more than SSM.


Your appeals to sociological studies concerning marriage are all faulty when used to support a ban of gay marriage because they have not (because they could not) take into account the long-term affects of SSM on a society. They wish to compare unmarried same-sex parenting couples to married heterosexual parenting couples.

Marriage is essential to society and provides economic utility far better than any second best alternative. According to their research, any breakdown in the familial unit will inevitably lead to increases in all problems associated with the breakdown of the family--well-documented in the families of minorities (father absent), single parent homes, and foster care.

By there very argumentation then, certain families (single parent, impoverished, sterile, etc) should be banned. Yet, they are only willing to ban those marriages which have dudes kissing, gay butt sex, and cunnilungus - cuz that's gross!

That it was unpublished is significant because it means that the study has not gone through several levels of peer review.

This is an ad-hominem. The politics behind publication in scholarly journals problematizes things greatly. Read Joao Magueijo's Faster than the Speed of Light. There are plenty of reasons why a very good paper may remain unpublished.

Appeals to the number of children born out of wed-lock in Scandinavia tend to fail to recognize that while the birth out of wed-lock is high, most children (conservative numbers are around 75%) are being raised by married parents.

It should come as no surprise that in America, the younger generation is more likely to favor gay marriage than their parents.

And racial equality. And gender equality. And religious tolerance. And education. And arts. Oh dear God!!! What is our world coming to?!?!?!?!

If, as in Norway, gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.

Key word - likely. Another way of saying unsubstantiated speculation. What is "the classic Nordic pattern" besides a rhetorical affect trying to imply that the pattern is more common than it actually is?

Were this to occur in America, it would result in rising rates of middle class family dissolution, continued separation of marriage from parenthood, and expansion of the American welfare state.

Heterosexual marriages have long been pushing America this way.

Typically this blog believes in leaving decisions like these to the states to decide separately

Ironically, the church used to advocate that marriage should be decided by the state, but now it's better *Christian* public relations to push for a sure-to-fail FMA.

but judicial activism...

Another rhetorical ploy to describe justices that disagree with you.

and the empirical effects of state-by-state loosening of divorce laws

Woah! Wait a minute. The FMA did nothing to affect divorce laws.


A personal note here. I have plenty of friends who have lost faith in marriage. NONE of them due to gays getting married. NONE of them due to a lowering value of marriage. They are ALL a result of seeing marriages (either their parents, or their own) fall apart due to economic strife, abuse, emotional disorders, drugs/alcohol, infidelity, or just plain bad beginnings (ie. they probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, but did because it's the right thing to do). Such destructive forces to the family are indisputed. The possible destructive force of SSM vis very disputed. EVERY study that tries to condemn SSM as destroying the family unit deals with societies where families were already on the decline. Because of this, they cannot show that either SSM is a result of declining families or an attributor to declining families. I agree that families need being protected, but banning SSM is hardly a way to do it.

Anonymous said...

the narrator,

It's about time this blog had a fellow 'liberal' making some comments. Your line-by-line logical assaults are much appreciated.

Morgan,

I agree with you that I didn't make my point very clear. I was just trying to explain what I didn't like about Jake's comment that homosexuality is no more 'normal' than other human ailments and conditions. Why can't the individual decide if he/she has a problem? Why is Jake diagnosing homosexuality as a problem? The church once 'diagnosed' having black skin as a normal occurrence that happened to be a bad one, and then denied non-whites entrance into the 'Kingdom.' The role of choice you question in homosexuality versus skin color is irrelevant. Would the church be justified in denying the priesthood to blacks if skin color WAS a choice? I understand Jake believes homosexuality is a sin and wouldn't exist in a perfect world, but in the America I want to live in, maximum allowance is given to the individual to diagnose his/her 'condition.' If the church wants to discriminate against gays just like it did against black people, then it just won't see very many gays in the pews. That bias shouldn't be extended to the government, even if the people who DO sit in the pews represent the majority.

Although the South technically lost the Civil War, it succeeded in spreading elements of its religious culture to the majority of the states in the Union. Christian evangelism answered the needs of the beaten South and the strongest trend in American religious devotion grew from there. Once the GOP locked up the extended South, America had a dominant religious party. In my opinion, the amendment is really just an appeal to the Christian voting block.

I think there are larger threats to America than gays getting married, and yes, threats larger than terrorism. America is at a turning point in its empire, and the decisions we make now will largely determine our position in the future world. Empires don't last forever. What was once coal and pounds is now oil and dollars. The age of oil is ending, and there are some very real issues we will have to address that will shape our world more than gay marriage. We need more scientists and fewer preachers. We need to spend more time building and less time destroying. We need to use our resources to educate our people. We need to be the place that every brain in the world wants to come to to receive an education, and then we should provide incentives to keep them here. We need to address the gap between the social classes, or it will address itself. In reality, we are spending our resources in Iraq to preserve our control of another resource that is expiring- oil. Brilliant. And I’m supposed to be worried that our society will collapse from within if gay people get married. Ha!

Anonymous said...

Raisin-

I guess I don't see the church as discriminating against homosexuals. The way I look at it is that homosexuals are always welcome just like a person who is addicted to pornography or a person who abuses their wife is always welcome. However, there are consequences to actions and choosing to disobey a commandment from God will make one ineligible for certain privileges. Where we are going to differ is in our religious beliefs.

I still think that the role of choice is relevant. In a hypothetical situation where a person could choose the color of their skin and certain skin colors were determined by God to be in accordance with his guidance then there would be conseqences associated with that choice. The person who chose the wrong skin color would not be eligible for certain privileges but would still be welcome to attend church. See the reasoning above. Once again it is not discrimination.

So I still struggle to see how the comparison between the civil rights movement and the SSM movement.

Raisin, why do you believe SSM would be beneficial to our country?

PS what are your views regarding the recent events in Iraq with Zarqawi?

The Silent Observer said...

By there very argumentation then, certain families (single parent, impoverished, sterile, etc) should be banned... economic strife, abuse, emotional disorders, drugs/alcohol, infidelity, or just plain bad beginnings

The difference is no one is trying to legalize any of those. Gay marriage might not be as big of problem as those things, but legalizing it is not a step in the right direction.

Fernando said...

By there very argumentation then, certain families (single parent, impoverished, sterile, etc) should be banned. Yet, they are only willing to ban those marriages which have dudes kissing, gay butt sex, and cunnilungus - cuz that's gross!

I was waiting for this to occur. I think there is a difference b/t homosexual marriages and single-parent families. I believe that single-family homes can have negative effects on children, but not necessarily. I have friends that were raised in single-parent homes and they’ve done well in life (graduated from college, good jobs, etc.). Education has a key role in how a child develops, but that isn’t really what we’re talking about.
It is always tiring to hear people complain about conservatives being intolerant. Just b/c I don’t agree with you on something, it doesn’t make me intolerant. I think there are plenty of intolerant liberals and conservatives.

the narrator said...

fernando:

I think there is a difference b/t homosexual marriages and single-parent families. I believe that single-family homes can have negative effects on children, but not necessarily.

so homosexual parents necessarily have a negative effect on kids?

I have friends that were raised in single-parent homes and they’ve done well in life

I have a friend that sniffs his fingers after scratching his butt. Nobody is arguing that single-sex parents necessarily negatively affect children (actually, plenty of people do). The point is that arguments against SSM fail when a reductio ad absurdum is applied (this is when an argument or methodology is used to bring absurd results)

the narrator said...

S.O.:

If one is legal, then the other should be legal. You cannot say that A must be illegal because of A being X, but B can be legal despite of B being X.

Anonymous said...

Morgan-

Just like Jake, you compared homosexuality to pornography addiction and spouse abuse. (or birth defects, depression, and mental illness) You appeal to God's commandments to justify your assessment. How did God communicate his/her/its opinion of homosexuality to you? How would God communicate displeasure over the color of skin in the hypothetical situation in which people could choose skin color? You would have to have faith in a prophet or some scripture, right? Well guess what, you don't HAVE to have faith in America. Likewise, the government can't tell you not to have faith. What you do in your temples and in your churches is your right, and even in America you can selectively decide who is IN and who is OUT in your church. However, there must be a separation of church and state in America, and any argument for an amendment that appeals SOLELY to a concept that requires faith in another person's God is wrong and weakens the protection of the Constitution. You and I will disagree on whether the church discriminates against gays, and that's because we have faith in different sources, but unless some real harms can be demonstrated from gay marriage, your appeal to faith-based reasoning would be discarded by any neutral party. And the narrator has done a pretty solid job of discrediting and shredding Jake's evidence and assertions. In the end, this is solely a religious issue and a wise America would find this amendment proposal offensive and disgusting.

Morgan, you asked me why I think gay marriage will make America better. You have missed the entire structure of this debate. The conservatives are taking the affirmative position that the Unites States Constitution should be amended to define marriage in a way that would make gay marriage impossible. I am not calling for the Constitution to be changed to promote and encourage gay marriage, and that's because I can't tell you that I have conclusive evidence that gay marriage will help or hurt society in any way, and neither do you. In other words, I am not claiming that gay marriage will help society. I am claiming that every argument Jake made in support of the amendment was either religiously biased or lacking in defensible evidence and logic. I would also make a counterclaim that the threat of using the Constitution as a way to promote a religious agenda outweighs the threat of gays getting married.

What do I think about al-Zarqawi? Well, I always hope that any events will lead to a decrease in violence and the end of bloodshed, and I guess I hope that happens, but I am skeptical of how much his death matters. At this point in Iraq, al-qaeda is only one of many insurgent factions and the major problems with the situation are independent of Zarqawi.

Anonymous said...

Who are we to sit back in our boats and feel the beautiful rays and condemn mankind and all that they desire without any real practical knowledge except that which we read in journal reviews? To say the people are not free to make their very own choices based off logic and not because of how they were raised is absurd. It is always easy to blame our errors on our parents or our circumstance but when it comes down to it we all have the opportunity to choose. Now if you choose some form and anal massaging good luck. if you choose to go to Harvard and become brilliant good for you. But, to sit back and categorize an entire category based off studies then you might as well call yourself Hitler.

the narrator said...

I'm interested in what the narrator proposes gay couples could do that would be good for society. As it is, the gay community reeks with lechery.

A large contributer to promiscuity among homosexuals is the delegitmization of homosexual relationships. Legitimizing their relationships would promote and support monogamy among them.

Anonymous said...

As you may remember, the marriage debate on this blog was initiated by Jerry Curl posting a link to an article written by a professor at BYU. He then asked for opinions of how long anyone thought that professor would last before getting fired. If you guessed until today, you would be right. Jeff Nielson was fired today for the opinion he expressed that initiated our discussion.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3932572

I'm sure when the brethren took this issue before Christ, He was the one who was most upset about the expression of a dissenting opinion. After all, just think what would have happened if Christ would have offered alternative opinions to the religion he belonged to. Oh wait, he was crucified for that. But still, I'm sure it was Christ who told the Brethren to fire Nielson for his opinion. I mean, if it wasn't Christ, then wouldn't that just seem like an authoritarian religion trying to silence dissent?

But Raisin, don't you realize that the decision was made by the Philosophy Department of BYU, and not the Church? Ok, you're right. I'm sure the Chairman didn't need to be pressured because the decision was already passed to him through the Holy Ghost.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Spedale's study is no longer "unpublished". He and has released a new book, "Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?" (along with co-author William Eskridge) in which he demonstrates that same-sex marriage has NOT harmed marriage or society in Scandinavia, and may have had some positive effects. I highly recommend you read the book - more info on it can be found at www.gaymarriagebook.com . I found it to be interesting, and it certainly uses the facts to blow the Kurtz argument away.

Anonymous said...

Raisin-

I understand that your often inflamatory posts are simple trolling. They actually make me chuckle quite often. Thanks. Also, I believe that Nielsen is still teaching at BYU. His contract for next year was not renewed. If he was "fired" it would seem to me like he would have packed his things in a cardboard box and been escorted to the door by security. I won't argue with you about the decision to not renew his contract. It was likely related to his choice of forums to voice his dissent. However, I don't think you should make BYU out to be the Evil Empire. Nielsen publicly criticized his employer regarding their stance on a very high profile and volatile topic. There are very few if any employers that would tolerate that. I don't question Nielsen's desire to question the stance taken by the First Presidency regarding SSM. However, I do question his choice of forum. Additionally, his "list of demands" really makes him look foolish. It would have been a thousand times more effective if he would have nailed his list to the doors of the SLC temple.

Anonymous said...

Morgan,

I think you've read enough of my comments to know I get a kick out of stirring people up and hearing what people really think. I'm glad that I at least make you chuckle from time to time, and I hope that wasn't meant to be a condescending remark. Our minds seem to be wired differently, but in all likelihood I am wrong sometimes, you are wrong sometimes, and we both are wrong sometimes. Maybe sometimes the same is true with being right. At least we can express opinions openly. Here comes another opinion:

I don't think BYU is the Evil Empire. 99.9% of the world doesn't give a shit about BYU, and why would they? An empire it is not, but a religious university that fears open discourse it may be. BYU is fully within its right to fire and hire who it wishes, and we don't really need to get into what the definition of "firing" is, do we? Is Nielson not teaching next semester because he voiced his unacceptable opinion in an 'inappropriate' forum? That's what you said, and I agree. We know what happened, so let's discuss why it happened. OK, he publicly voiced an opinion that contradicted the position of his employer, right? Can BYU fire him for that? Yes. Should it? In my opinion, no. Why do I feel that way? Because in the academic world, free speech and open discourse are essential elements in the search for truth. Sometimes there may be hidden truths that are not perceived by the employer, and sometimes those truths may run contrary to the traditionally held beliefs and doctrine of that employer. I believe that universities should not seek to indoctrinate, but rather to facilitate the search for truth and understanding. Firing professors for expressing alternative viewpoints actually weakens the integrity of the educational institution and communicates the message to the rest of the faculty and students that the position of the church is above question. What's wrong with open debate and the weighing of ideas? Shouldn't truth stand on its own, regardless of the opinions expressed by humans? What is there to fear? Are you worried about the craftiness of intellectuals? Aren't you worried about the craftiness of religions too? God knows there is historical reason to be worried about the craftiness of both, and we are better-served by considering the contributions and detractions of both. I am not claiming that BYU had no right to fire Nielson. I am voicing this opinion as a member of the church (until they haul me in to the Council, yikes!): I believe that my religion and its flagship educational institution are wrong to try and silence public expression of dissenting opinions by the educators of those capable students who wish to weigh ideas and develop the tools that would aid in the discernment of truth from error. Once again we come back to a difference of opinion: You believe that faith and the Holy Ghost are the tools; I believe critical thinking and rational thought are. (That's not to say that faith isn't important.) In my world, I am open to all ideas and I have the freedom to accept or reject those ideas and opinions. In BYU Land, the employer seeks to make the choice for you.

Haven't you ever found it funny that the Holy Ghost is considered to be your personal guide to truth unless your discovery is contrary to the opinion of someone higher "upstream" than you? What range of ideas can you really consider before you are beyond your realm of revelation and subject to the admonishment of church authorities? Why is expressing an opinion publicly so much worse than holding the opinion inside? If the church could implant a device in your brain that monitored your opinions, would it be justified in punishing you if it found out that your opinions were contrary to official doctrine? Is the harm in communicating the opinion to others?

Morgan, did you serve a mission? Jake and I served in the same mission, and he was my first zone leader when I hit the field. Do you both remember how hard it was to teach the gospel to people who were educated? For every lawyer, scientist, doctor or professor we baptized, we committed dozens of migrant workers and laborers. Not that the God I believe in would place a different value on any of those individuals, but why do you think it was so hard to sell the church to educated people? I already know the conditioned answer: Because the educated are wealthier and thus more prideful and unreceptive to the promptings of the Spirit. Do you believe that? Is that what you really think? Maybe it’s those evil tools of rationalism and critical thinking they learned in their godless universities. :)

Isn't it ironic that the political party the Mormons allied themselves with consists of the educated and moneyed elite (who would never join the church) and Evangelical Christians (who would never join the "cult")?

Enough trollings for now Morgan. Hope you chuckled a little.

Morgan said...

Raisin-

FYI- Sometimes it is difficult for me to differentiate between your trollings and true beliefs. I usually can tell you truly believe something if I feel like you are yelling when I read what you are writing :)

I believe that rational thought and critical thinking can and should be coupled with faith and the Holy Ghost. I believe that the
Church teaches that. I believe that the missionaries teach that. I know that I taught that in Elder's Quorum recently and all the time on my mission. I believe that Joseph Smith taught that as well. That is why he founded the School of the Prophets and that is why the Church spends roughly $700 million a year on its universities. (this is a rough estimate I read on a message board recently which was derived using "the back of and envelope" method so do not hold me to it)It is also why the first things missionaries do is to ask investigators to first read and think about what they have read. Then they should ask God whether or not what they have read is true. I think that that is the coupling of critical thought with faith and the Holy Ghost on a very basic yet fundamental level.

With respect to your question regarding how far does your personal revelation extend, I think you know the answer. Personal revelation is personal in nature. Revelation with respects to others is only valid when the person receiving said revelation possesses the keys and authorites or stewardship over a group of people.

And finally, when I was serving my mission I preferred to teach the educated because more often than not when they said that they would read or that they would meet at a certain time then I felt comfortable that they would honor their commitment. And more often than not they did just that. I also enjoyed teaching them because they would think about what they were hearing and actually question whether or not it was true rather than taking everything I said at face value. We would discuss things and then they would ask the Lord whether or not it was true. It seemed to work out great for me. That is just my limited personal experience though and I don't want to project that to the world's population.

Raisin, maybe we are wired differently or maybe we just had a different set of experiences that shaped our way of thinking (but that is another topic for another day). I really don't find religion nor its teachings to be restrictive. I actually find it quite liberating. I feel free to question the things that I am taught and I often do. I apply the formula for acquiring knowledge that I referred to above. It works.

Anonymous said...

Morgan-

I like the fact that you are sincere and I appreciate your responses. I need to learn to write more clearly so there is no confusion if I am serious, sarcastic, angry or simply venting. You have to understand that I rarely have political or religious discussions in my 'real' life because I realize the volatility of such topics and I prefer to keep things peaceful with my family, friends, and co-workers. A notable exception is with Jake, and that's just because I respect his intelligence and I know I am generally on his turf when discussing politics, and I have never known Jake to allow our bantering to affect our friendship. Other than that, religion and politics are issues I choose not to discuss with the people I care about who might hold strong opinions that I disagree with, or vice versa. I use this blog as a place to occasionally blow off some steam or express some feelings without the consequence of damaging my relationships. Call it catharsis. And I fully realize that my comments are largely lost in the ether, and if you agree with me you may nod, and if you disagree you may chuckle and shake your head, and then that's the end of it.

Now to quickly make a comment concerning the points you made:

I agree that the church encourages education and I believe the number of college graduates and beyond is quite high within the church. I was more or less taking a cheap shot and badgering you a little. I don't see the religious as mindless followers, and some of the most intelligent people I have met have been members of religions. Furthermore, I don't think secular universities have a monopoly on teaching correct principles, and in many ways BYU does an admirable job.

Now don't think I've gone soft, just because I have tempered my rant with a little truth and fairness. :) I actually have to take off right now, but I will return later to speak directly to some of the points you made- not to convince you that you are wrong, but maybe to give a more measured version of what I expressed earlier.

Later.

StatCounter