The MADness of the gay marriage debate

[_why me]

My objection was not just to the lack of support by the LDS church for the social issues I raised regarding child abuse case. It was directed at the religious community at large.

Imagine what would happen if the LDS and say, Dobson's Focus on the Family were to integrate it's members into the social services agencies for volunteer hours.

Imagine that. Seriously.

Here is a Cape May diamond for you:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/5 ... -1995.html

Members are doing much in their communities.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Beastie, I don't think it was defensible for you to claim broad future victory for the gay marriage movement when, in fact, gay marriage is still not allowed in most places. Future votes in the coming generation could trend either way, despite the slim majority of young people who support it right now. (It was 58%, right?)

I don't know that I'd call a 16-point lead a "slim majority". You also need to consider that the 58% number is from a national poll, which would presumably include voters from places like Mississippi and Arkansas. According to exit polls, young Californians favor gay marriage by something like 30 points. The national figures imply majorities in favor of gay marriage in virtually all states within a generation, unless there's a big backlash, which is merely a conservative pipe dream.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You don't know what the f*** you're talking about. I assume by "postmodernism" you mean "moral relativism", but even that doesn't salvage your point from the bottom of Stupid Lagoon. Moral relativists can't be opposed to anti-gay-marriage advocates. They're moral relativists -- tey beleef een notting, Leboski.

I was referring to truth and the lack of the meta narrative--universal truths that guided modernity. Now, we live in an age of many little truths brought forth by idenity groups and each of these truths need to be respected by the whole. Same sex marriage would be one of these idenity truths. Now of course, our society does frown on idenity truths that harm children but more and more idenity truths are coming to the fore making universal values less important. Values have become fragmented.

Miss California dared to step on one group's idenity truth and they resented it and they attempted to ruin her. It seems that one can not interfere with idenity truth without risking career.

Read my post again, and see if you can respond to it without immediately going beyond the scope of what it asked. This should be a fun game.

There are plenty of pro-gay voices who denounced what Perez Hilton said, by the way.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The hurt comes indirectly as society breaks down because we have no universal values or universal understandings.

You mean society breaks down because everyone is not LDS?

LOL. Yes, he does -- or more accurately, that society breaks down because not everyone thinks like a Mormon.

Well-put.

[_Calculus Crusader]

You also need to consider that the 58% number is from a national poll, which would presumably include voters from places like Mississippi and Arkansas.

Possibly but not necessarily. I'd like to know how they conducted their sampling. In any event, it would be better to poll within each state.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You also need to consider that the 58% number is from a national poll, which would presumably include voters from places like Mississippi and Arkansas.

Possibly but not necessarily. I'd like to know how they conducted their sampling. In any event, it would be better to poll within each state.

Pollsters rarely if ever include percentages for polling groups that are too small to be statistically significant. The odds that nobody from a more traditional state is included in the polling group is very small.

I agree that it would be better to poll within each state.

[_Sethbag]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the hysteria that so many of the anti-gay marriage folks have created about the ruin that gay marriage would wreak upon our society, and how this will play out in the future.

As long as gay marriage was just some future event, scare tactics could work to some degree. It's legal in several states now, however, and in a few foreign countries. Every year that passes will be another year that gays have been getting married, without the sky falling or society collapsing.

At some point, the scare tactics of "Gay marriage will ruin our society! Marriage and the family will be utterly destroyed by it!" will ring simply and obviously hollow. It will become absurd to argue against gay marriage on these kinds of grounds after it's clear that all the dire predictions have not come true.

[_JohnStuartMill]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the hysteria that so many of the anti-gay marriage folks have created about the ruin that gay marriage would wreak upon our society, and how this will play out in the future.

As long as gay marriage was just some future event, scare tactics could work to some degree. It's legal in several states now, however, and in a few foreign countries. Every year that passes will be another year that gays have been getting married, without the sky falling or society collapsing.

At some point, the scare tactics of "Gay marriage will ruin our society! Marriage and the family will be utterly destroyed by it!" will ring increasingly hollow. At some point, enough years with the sky firmly in place up above will have passed that it will just be absurd to keep fighting gay marriage on these grounds.

I agree, Sethbag. This phenomenon will be doubly effective in California's fight for equality, too, considering that there are already 18,000 gay marriages here, and voters won't feel any ill effects in the year or two before the next plebiscite.

[_beastie]

Beastie, I don't think it was defensible for you to claim broad future victory for the gay marriage movement when, in fact, gay marriage is still not allowed in most places. Future votes in the coming generation could trend either way, despite the slim majority of young people who support it right now. (It was 58%, right?) For you to take that bit of data and accuse anyone who disagrees with your vision of the future of self delusion (more or less what you did) is worthy of a chastisement in my opinion. Unfortunately, people make such sweeping predictions all the time on MADB, especially coming from the other side with the likes of jwhitlock, Droopy, and wenglund. Charity did it with the backing of scripture LOL! These usual suspects help set the tone of the board. You were only singled out for being a high profile critic.

I would just point out (to Ray) that I was banned merely for mentioning the existence of a YouTube video of a Big Love episode. ...and for having the opinion that said video was not offensive.

I think you’re right. Your detailed analysis helped me to see this when whyme’s “your tone sucked” did not. It is difficult to truly see one’s own words from another perspective, much like it is difficult to proofread one’s own writing.

Yes, I could have been more circumspect in the way I phrased my point (by the way, I disagree with your assessment that the current generational gap does not indicate future support of gay marriage, but I’ll talk more about that later). This is one of the challenges in being a critic at MAD. A certain tone is set on the board, and unless the critic remembers constantly that he/she is a second class citizen, it’s easy to start responding in kind. I’m just not cut out for those kind of eggshells. I’m too blunt. I dislike obsequious pandering and ego stroking. I don’t have the inclination to spend time to “soften the blow” for believers. When I first returned to MAD, it was with the intent to only participate on Mesoamerican threads, which would make it easier to avoid these problems because those discussions are more fact-based. But eventually I got bored with the same hold horse nonsense, and branched out. That was my mistake. I don’t regret posting again for the time I did, because I think I did address some of the silliness that kept being resurrected, at least for a while. But clearly I’m not cut out to be a second-class citizen, with some folks more equal than others, so I think my participation is over.

Interestingly, several comments about my suspension and my general posting style have been allowed to stand. I was under the impression that mods usually did not allow commentary about their actions, and I wouldn’t have expected even MAD mods to allow extended criticism of a poster who cannot respond (although that is naïve on my part, because they have allowed that in regards to Kevin). The funniest thing yet was Wade trying to prove his point that I’m incapable of genuine dialogue by referencing Pahoran, Juliann, and Droopy. !!!!!!!! No more needs to be said.

However, I suspect that it was charity who complained about me, since she made this statement:


I stated:

This type of response reveals that LDS like you really do think homosexuality is a worse sin than anything else. After all, this country is already riddled with fornication, adultery, pornography, child abuse, divorce, and the oppression of the poor and powerless, yet it would be gay marriage that would fulfill this scripture.

Charity:

I find this post offensive, for those of you who are wondering. I am the "LDS like you" that beastie was referring to. And she did put words in my mouth. I never said homosexuality was a worse sin than anything else. So her sneering remark was very offensive.

This is a good example of the bogus charge that I “put words in people’s mouths”. What I do is to try and demonstrate the logical result of the premises put forth by posters (or present what I view as the logical result of those premises). So let’s look at charity’s other response to my comment to see if I really “put words in her mouth”.

Charity:

I'm not trying to kick beastie while she is down (on suspension), but just to clarify for any others who may be reading.

I did not say that homosexuality was a worse sin than anything else. I think the warning in Mosiah will equally apply to a time when people will say that child abuse is a good thing, or pornography is a good thing, or. . . well, the list is a long one. Beastie's list incluides things which while many people indulge in, still are considered evil. The warning is carefully constructed to say that the time when the majority of the people say they are good is the time when that society is ripened in iniquity.

I see much of societies' sick attitudes as having given up on what is right. Are young kids having sex? Yes. Is thiis a good thing? No, but they are going to do it, so let's hand out condoms in the junior high health center. Does this mean that the majority of the people have chosen evil over good? Not to my mind. They have just rolled over and are playing dead.

I suspect Charity is reading this, so I’ll address my comments to her. Charity, what you are saying is that gay marriage – which means society APPROVING of homosexuality, in your view – IS worse than child abuse, pornography, etc - because people still think these actions are evil. So if – and only if – society decided that child abuse, pornography, etc, is a “good thing”, THEN would these things rate as highly as gay marriage.

Did I really put words in Charity’s mouth? I welcome both viewpoints, although I would like detailed criticism that supports your contention if you assert that I did. How else can one interpret her words? She says the warning in Mosiah will apply if society sanctions gay marriage, but will not apply until society also sanctions child abuse and the other social ills I listed. So she is saying that gay marriage – ie, the approval of homosexuality - is worse than the other social ills because society disapproves of the other acts. When society approves of those acts,then it will merit the warning she shared.

While I believe my interpretation is logical and supportable by her words, at the very least, she obviously views gay marriage as just as bad as child abuse, etc.

I’ll try to come back to some other points later.

[_beastie]

Now, as to whether or not I was mistaken in asserting that the generational gap in gay marriage support safely predicts the future passage of legislation allowing gay marriage:

There have been a couple of challenges made to this. One is that people become more conservative as they age. There is reason to believe this is a myth. See this article, for example:

http://www.livescience.com/health/08031 ... niors.html

Busting Myth, People Turn More Liberal With Age
The stereotype of a cranky old man, set in his ways, getting more conservative by the day, is an enduring one. But new research has debunked the myth that people become more conservative as they age.

By comparing surveys of various age groups taken over a span of more than 30 years, sociologists found that in general, Americans' opinions veer toward the liberal as they grow older.

"All the evidence we have found refutes the idea that as people age their attitudes become more conservative or more rigid," said Nicholas Danigelis, a sociologist at the University of Vermont. "It's just not true. More people are changing in a liberal direction than in a conservative direction."

Detailed study

Danigelis and collaborators Stephen Cutler of the University of Vermont and Melissa Hardy of Pennsylvania State University analyzed data from the U.S. General Social Surveys of 46,510 Americans between 1972 and 2004. While the surveys did not provide data for the same individuals at different stages, they represented snapshots of the changing attitudes of respondents in different age cohorts over time. The researchers corrected for the fact that the age groups at different survey times are made of up new members with unique baseline opinions.

The surveys assessed attitudes on politics, economics, race, gender, religion and sexuality issues. In some cases, such as racial issues and questions of civil liberties for communists, the researchers measured a greater change toward liberalism in older people than in younger people.

"What we believe has happened, at least for the race relations, is that the older group, starting out at a position of significantly more negative feelings, had further to go," Danigelis told LiveScience.
If people really become more liberal as they age, why does common wisdom hold the opposite to be true?

People might find an average 60-year-old to be more conservative than an average 30-year-old, Danigelis said, but beware of extrapolating a trend. The older person, for example, might have started off even more conservative than he or she is now.

Danigelis also blamed the misconception on pervasive negative attitudes toward the elderly in our country, and stereotypes that depict seniors as rigid, ornery and set in their ways.
"If you look at any greeting cards about getting older you’ve got a wonderful lecture about age stereotypes," he said. "My colleague continues to cut out cartoons about getting old and trying to teach old dogs new tricks."

Now while this survey suffers from the same weakness as the earlier one I cited, which is that the same population was not polled at different points in their lives, this survey takes into consideration the very point I was trying to make. We must take the contextual social mores of the time into consideration in trying to guess whether or not the age group would have been more or less liberal/conservative in their opinions on specific matters.

From the earlier poll:

Among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents 35 to 49 years old, and to 41 percent for those 50 to 64 years of age. The poll indicates that only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages as valid.

65+ individuals grew up during the forties and fifties. The idea that these people would have supported gay marriage in larger numbers than 24% is completely illogical, once one considers the social mores of the time period. While some groups idealize the fifties, it was a time of social repression of minorities, women, and homosexuals even moreso. Gays had to remain firmly closeted or face harassment to which legal system turned a blind eye. I imagine the rate of support for gay marriage in young people during the fifties would approach zero percent.

50-64 is my age cohort, although I’m on the younger end of that scale. The older of this group were exposed to the hippy movement, as annewandering pointed out. Yes, that was a time period of acceptance of more open sexuality. But did that include open acceptance of homosexuality? According to one expert in homosexual history, the sixties were possible one of the MOST homophobic periods in American history. From “Homophobia” by Byrne R. S. Fone
http://books.google.com/books?id=gL_nAQ ... t&resnum=4

Sorenson’s proposal to eradicate homosexuals was extreme, of course, but it echoed the historic desire of heterosexual society to end homosexuality. While science experimented on homosexuals, often against their will – with shock treatment, aversion therapy, hormone injections, castration, drug therapy, lobotomy – society, too, did its part to eliminate them. Violence, blackmail, social ostracism, imprisonment, and public humiliation were employed against them, especially if they refused to abandon their “degenerate” ways or refused to remain hidden in what, by the sixties, they had come to call the closet. Indeed, it was in the early sixties – one of the most homophobic periods in American history – that the metaphor of the closet first emerged in gay argot. “Nowhere does it appear before the 1960s in the records of the gay movement, or in novels, diaries, or letters of gay men and lesbians.” During the 1960s, when 82 percent of American men and 58 percent of the women surveyed believed that only Communists and atheists were more dangerous than homosexuals, many homosexuals felt that the closet was the safest place to be.

Surveys provide bare statistics. A glance at some randomly chosen writings about homosexuality from the late 1960s and early 1970s demonstrates the hatred behind the numbers. In these writings, homosexuals are “vermin,” “perverts,” “inferior,” “cowards,” “unconstrained,” “socially worthless,” “dangerous,” “pitiful,” “misfits,” “timid,” “shy,” “retiring,” “girlish,” “fastidious,” “domineering,” “abnormal,” “sinister,” “decadent,” “disgusting,” “unmanly,” “un-American,” “foreign,” “immoral,” “diseased,” “insane,” “psychopathic,” “neurotic,” “sterile,” “uncreative,” “queer,” “degenerate,” “criminal.” This lexicon of vilification expressed an attitude that had not been named; the invention of “homophobia” had to wait until the 1970s.

If anyone wants to contest these statements, it is incumbent upon them to prove that the 60s was actually a time of acceptance of homosexuality. Good luck.

Again, suggesting that, during this social climate, more than 41% of young people would have supported gay marriage defies reason. So, to support the assertion of the second article I cited debunking the idea people become more conservative as they age, the reality is probably that these people have grown to support gay marriage in larger numbers than they would have in their youth, due to the social climate of their youth.

So what we see in the younger generation is not just the liberalism of youth, but a reflection of the social mores of the time. Our society is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality. This is a fact that the anti-gay marriagers recognize and decry as a sign of social degeneration. But they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot recognize the changing social mores when they want to make a case for social degeneration, and then ignore those same changing social mores when it comes to predicting future acceptance of gay marriage.