Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

Could someone please explain how the value of women and mothers is diminished, when many (if not most) of the same-sex couples with children consist of two women? Male-oriented homophobia, apparently.

The explanation may be easily grasped by correctly understanding the context--which, in terms of my blog posts, is legalized marriage, which includes traditional and SSM. And, for your information, SSM encompasses more than marriage between two women. It also includes marriages between two men.

With that broader context in mind, it is important to recognize that within traditional marriage, women/mothers are typically viewed as adding value to the family that men/fathers can't entirely add. In certain respects, women/mothers are considered as greater in value to men/fathers.

However, with SSM two men are viewed as equal to a man and a women. In such cases, women/mothers aren't viewed as necessary or of additional value to the family as long as there are two men.

Said another way, SSM, particularly marriage between two men, effectively diminishes the unique value of women/mothers to the family as compared with traditional marriage.

Granted, the same is true, in principle, for men/fathers. In terms of families, SSM between two women values men/fathers less than does traditional marriage.

So, by legalizing SSM, this culturally diminishes the value of women/mothers and men/fathers to the fundamental institution of society: the family.

Does that help?

Either way, could you please explain how reasonably recognizing the unique value that both women and men bring to the family somehow amounts to fear of (phobia) of homosexuals?

That said, it's interesting to me that the arguments against marriage equality always turn out to be arguments against gay relationships in general. Any pair of lesbians or gay men can already live together and raise children without the benefit of state-sanctioned marriage. The legal label doesn't affect that at all.

You are correct that SSM is highly problematic, in large part, because homosexuality is highly problematic, and that it doesn't make sense for the state to sanction highly problematic relationships. There are problems enough without the state sanction.

Yet, the point of my blog isn't to argue against the inanity of stete-sanction of highly problematic relationships. Such inanity has already occurred and seems destined to proliferate. Rather, my intent is to simply point out the disconcerting problems resulting from the inane state sanction of highly problematic relationships.

What it boils down to is no more than a fight for the exclusive ownership of the word "marriage." And that's just plain silly.

If that is what it actually does boils down to, then I would agree that it is just plain silly.

However, the disconcerting problems resulting from state sanction of highly problematic relationship, aren't silly, nor is my pointing them out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Also, let's clarify - the Williams Institute is making a claim only in regard to the financial well being of SSM couples. They are not implying that these costs would be incurred by the government.

"The first point worth noting is that marriage can make a big difference for same-sex couples’ financial well-being. A few years ago, two New York Times reporters calculated that even ordinary same-sex couples could lose as much as $500,000 over a lifetime because they can’t marry and therefore can’t get employers’ spousal health insurance, among other disadvantages."

So the figures that they are relying upon, from the New York Times, may very well support their argument. But their claims are not the same as your claims.

To further clarify, the figures were trotted out by the NY Times and Williams Institute in support of government sanction of SSM, thus suggesting that the costs are a function of governmental action, thereby making them governmental costs.

However, I see your salient point, and I don't wish to contribute to obfuscation. And, so, I have made the appropriate changes--I have altered the title to the post in question and amended the relevant sentences to say, "...the total burden born by the government and the economy at large..." (see HERE)

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

However, I see your salient point, and I don't wish to contribute to obfuscation. And, so, I have made the appropriate changes--I have altered the title to the post in question and amended the relevant sentences to say, "...the total burden born by the government and the economy at large..." (see HERE)

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If the concern is about the burden on the economy, maybe we should consider doing away with the legal benefits for heterosexual married couples, as well, which would save an enormous amount of money. Otherwise, saying that as a society, some people are entitled to benefits while others are not, based on gender, is discriminatory.

[Gadianton]

Could you please explain the causal connection between gay marriage and the rate of homosexual suicide. I just don't see a connection.

I didn't claim that there was necessarily a causal connection specifically with suicide, or for that matter other homosexual social ills. What I said was:

"Liberals have argued for same-sex marriage by claiming, in part, that it would encourage stable, longterm committed relationships among homosexual couples, thereby having a positive effect on social health and welfare--just as presumably with legal marriage for heterosexuals. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) However, after legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and other states, instead of decreasing certain sex-related social problems as intended (like homosexual promiscuity and infidelity and intimate/domestic partner violence and suicides and AIDs and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections), the previous downward trends were reversed and saw an increase at an alarming rate for each of these social ills. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).(See HERE)

Granted, elsewhere I did state generally: "there is a clear correlation, and plausible causation, between social acceptance of homosexual behaviors and the Leftist LUNCs of rise in homosexual-related social ills--the greater the acceptance of homosexual behaviors, the greater the homosexual social ills." (See HERE),

I also clarified : "Granted, like with the spike in social ills and the marriage crisis, the ripple effects mentioned above may be caused by a number of social factors, perhaps even more so than legalizing gay marriage, though that legalization is evidently a contributing factor." (See HERE)

However, here is a plausible explanation I gave for homosexual social ills in general: "Legalization of same-sex marriage may have been viewed by many people as the government and society putting its seal of approval on homosexual behaviors, thus altering or loosening social morals and promoting homosexuality. And since homosexuals, as a culture, tend to be far more promiscuous and lacking in fidelity and prone to intimate/domestic partner violence and STDs and mental illness than heterosexuals (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), then legalization of same-sex marriage may have inadvertently promoted promiscuity and infidelity and intimate/domestic partner violence, with the side effect of increased STDs and suicides (see HERE and HERE), contrary to what the Left had planned." (See HERE)

While I can certainly see that middle aged deeply closeted self loathing homosexuals who have repressed their sexuality for decades in obedience to the Lord's commandments might be depressed and envious of the gains and social acceptance made by gays that are out and proud, and might wish to end their miserable loveless existence, that wouldn't show up as a homosexual suicide.

First of all, self-loathing is not a commandment of the Lord. Quite the contrary.

Second, if they were "deeply closeted," then how would it be known as a "homosexual suicide?"

Third, if repressed sexuality and/or religious obedience were the primary or significant factors in suicide (as opposed to risk factors typically listed by experts), then one would expect proportionately greater rates of suicide among the general chaste and religious population than the promiscuous and irreligious population. Do you have support for your insinuation? (I ask because from what I recall, the statistics demonstrate just the opposite.)

Also, why is it, with such compelling evidence, the proponents of Prop 8 didn't call you to the stand.

If my "compelling evidence" was rendered for the purpose of making a constitutional case for Prop 8, then your question may have made some semblance of sense. It wasn't.

Instead they introduced some idiots presenting social data who got their asses handed to them by Boise and Olsen on cross examination.

That is one way of seeing it. Too bad it is entirely irrelevant to my blog and this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

If the concern is about the burden on the economy, maybe we should consider doing away with the legal benefits for heterosexual married couples, as well, which would save an enormous amount of money. Otherwise, saying that as a society, some people are entitled to benefits while others are not, based on gender, is discriminatory.

One might reasonably draw that conclusion.

However, to clarify, let me reiterate that my blog posts weren't intended as an argument against gay marriage, but rather as an explication of the negative results of legalizing gay marriage.

Having said that, I also indicated at the bottom of the page in question: "This thought is made all the worse when realizing that for all the public and private money to be divvied out to gay marriages, there will be little if any social benefited in return."

The point in bringing this up is to suggest that costs (social and economic), while very important, aren't all that should be factored into the equation. It is helpful to balanced the cost against the benefits. If the benefits exceed the costs, then the costs make sense. Otherwise, they don't.

And, if for heterosexual marriages the benefits outweigh the cost, whereas for homosexual marriages the costs outweigh the benefits, then, discriminating in favor of the one and against the other makes good social and economic sense. Treating them equally would be social and economic nonsense. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, how do you rationalise the Church's vocal stance on wanting freedom to practice religion "how, where and what" one likes.
With the Church's efforts to impose it's beliefs about same sex marriage on people who aren't members?

As explained in my post on Same-Sex Marriage--Loss of Freedom, people of other religions are free to marry whomever or whatever they wish. Prop 8 didn't change that. All it did was limit governmental sanction of certain relationship. In fact, it didn't even do that. Homosexual relationships could still be sanctioned by the government as domestic partnerships. So, all that Prop 8 did was limit the specific governmental sanction of "marriage" to heterosexuals.

So, as I stated in the linked article, "while people have pretty much been free to marry whomever or whatever they wish, the government and societies have likewise been free, to an extent, to legally recognize whichever marriages they see fit. As such, limiting legal marriage to heterosexuals, hasn't been a restriction of homosexual freedoms [or religious freedoms], but an exercise of governmental and societal freedom."

In short, the Church's vocal support of Prop 8 years ago, didn't "impose" its beliefs on religious practices, but, through members exercising their constitutional rights, along with other religious and irreligious people, democratically limited government sanction of those practices.

There is nothing to rationalize, and thus no rationalization required.

However, if you are concerned about the actual loss of religious freedoms, and people imposing their beliefs on others, then you may be interested to learn that legalizing SSM may ironically cause the loss of religious and other freedom--and not just for heterosexuals. See my article linked above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

One might reasonably draw that conclusion.

However, to clarify, let me reiterate that my blog posts weren't intended as an argument against gay marriage, but rather as an explication of the negative results of legalizing gay marriage.

I'm not sure how giving people the same benefits that others are entitled to is a negative result.

Having said that, I also indicated at the bottom of the page in question: "This thought is made all the worse when realizing that for all the public and private money to be divvied out to gay marriages, there will be little if any social benefited in return."

I'm not sure we can know at this point what benefits, if any, there will be, because except in a few places, the effect of legalized same-sex marriage is hypothetical.

The point in bringing this up is to suggest that costs (social and economic), while very important, aren't all that should be factored into the equation. It is helpful to balanced the cost against the benefits. If the benefits exceed the costs, then the costs make sense. Otherwise, they don't.

And, if for heterosexual marriages the benefits outweigh the cost, whereas for homosexual marriages the costs outweigh the benefits, then, discriminating in favor of the one and against the other makes good social and economic sense. Treating them equally would be social and economic nonsense. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm. I worry about people who think freedoms and civil liberties should be dispensed by the government based on a cost-benefit analysis.

[_Bazooka]

And, if for heterosexual marriages the benefits outweigh the cost, whereas for homosexual marriages the costs outweigh the benefits, then, discriminating in favor of the one and against the other makes good social and economic sense. Treating them equally would be social and economic nonsense. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And, if for natural disasters in wealthy areas the benefits outweigh the cost, whereas for natural disasters in poor areas the costs outweigh the benefits, then, letting the poor people fend for themselves makes good social and economic sense. Right?

Wade, you can really spout some crap when you put your mind to it.

[Gadianton]

I'm not sure how giving people the same benefits that others are entitled to is a negative result.

So, if adults are entitled to drive cars, you don't see the negative result of giving toddlers that same benefit?

I'm not sure we can know at this point what benefits, if any, there will be, because except in a few places, the effect of legalized same-sex marriage is hypothetical.

We may not be able to establish all the benefits to an absolute certainty, but as with economic forecasts and environmental impact statements, we can offer useful, educated guesstimates.

Hmmm. I worry about people who think freedoms and civil liberties should be dispensed by the government based on a cost-benefit analysis.

As explained previously, in this case the government isn't dispensing freedom, per se. Rather, it is dispensing government sanctions--i.e. the states seal of approval and incentives (benefits).

And, presumably, the government doesn't dispense its sanctions for no reason. Typically, as with other regulatory and licensing acts (like with doctors and lawyers and businesses and teachers and auto drivers), there is a rational basis (cost-benefit) for the dispensing.

For example, regarding state sanctions for driving cars, there is good reason that the government sanctions people who have lived beyond a certain age and who have demonstrated adequate driving competency. On balance, the benefits to society exceeds the costs. However, the government doesn't dispense this sanction to toddlers because the financial and health and safety costs would far exceed the benefit to society.

The same, in principle, holds true for the state sanctioning of marriage. Governments got into the business of sanctioning traditional marriage, in part, because they rationally surmised that the social cost of illicit heterosexual relationships would be higher than the benefits of promoting licit heterosexual relationships, and so it was in the state's interest to incentivize and regulate traditional marriage.

Furthermore, because of the sexual component and the serious responsibilities associated with marriage and parenting, societies, through their governments, have considered it more than unwise to permit minors to marry. In their minds, the cost to individuals and society would far exceed any benefit (assuming there is any). So, on that rational basis, not only have they not sanctioned minor marriages, but they have even fashioned laws preventing them.

The point being, governmental licensing and regulations don't occur in a vacuum. Presumably there is a rational basis behind them.

Furthermore, such licensing and regulations may, over time, become conferred "civil rights" because of the rational basis, and not in spite of the rational basis.

As such, I worry about people who may dispense government sanctions without a rational basis (a cost-benefit analysis). In fact, irrational legislation may have caused various Leftist LUNCS--as my blog amply explicates. I explore this point indirectly in relation to SSM in my blog post on, Same-Sex Marriage--Destructive Compassion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

And, if for natural disasters in wealthy areas the benefits outweigh the cost, whereas for natural disasters in poor areas the costs outweigh the benefits, then, letting the poor people fend for themselves makes good social and economic sense. Right?

No. I am not making a universal and absolute utilitarian argument. I am speaking pragmatically.

Wade, you can really spout some crap when you put your mind to it.

It can certainly seem that way when you mis-interpret my comments in such a crappy way. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-