NY passes same sex marriage

[_Morley]

So, if I said people shouldn't get too upset about Mormonism, after all it can't be worse than "spousal abuse, child abuse, [and] infidelity," you'd be okay with that, right?

Its a true statement in my mind. I'd more than okay with that, I might employ it at some point (with your permission?). Thanks.

Go for it (as long as you use the entire quote). Take care, Stem.

[_BartBurk]

I think it would be more fair to say that the religious right was strangely silent on this, including, but not limited to Mormons.

What were religious people supposed to do? Many catholics interviewed were against same sex marriage but they had no vote. The liberal gay agenda did not want a democratic debate and voter participation because they knew they would lose.

Unfortunately for those of us against gay marriage, the people of New York elected liberals mainly for economic reasons and wound up with the rest of the liberal agenda as well. They have nobody to blame but themselves if they were against gay marriage. It's one thing for a court to impose it, but when the elected representatives approve of it then the system worked as it was supposed to work.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do you have some research on this one? The research I've read that goes at least into the early 2000's suggests that there is a decent sized statistical jump between gay men and the rest of the population in lifetime sexual partner rate. Straight men and gay women are roughly comparable, and straight women are on the low end.

There are lots of different numbers out there, so it really depends on how a study is designed, what birth cohorts it includes, and what region it focuses on.

Some of the earliest studies were done in the 1970s among populations of self-selecting, urban gay males. These often concluded that gays were extremely promiscuous, averaging over 250 lifetime partners. Well, obviously if you're recruiting your respondents from gay bars and gay baths then you're going to get a fairly promiscuous sample.

Studies with better methodologies show more parity between gays and straights. For example, Leridon, van Zessen, and Hubert find that in some countries in Europe gays actually have fewer median lifetime sexual partners, though Norway is the only one where the mean is lower. The authors note that the mean in Great Britain is skewed upward by a small group of highly promiscuous persons with many partners. (Compare this chart for straights to this one for gays.)

The National Health and Social Life Survey in 1994 was the first representative national survey to collect data for the US. It found that the mean number of lifetime sexual partners was 16.9 for heterosexuals and 26.6 for homosexuals. Again, these are means, not medians, so they may be skewed by a small, highly promiscuous group.

One of the most remarkable charts I've seen recently is the data published by the dating website OKCupid showing that the distributions of lifetime partners for gays and straights registered with their website are roughly the same. (Admittedly this is a self-selecting group, but all the other studies have sample limitations of their own, so I don't think we should dismiss this out of hand.) The site owners observe, "It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy." This would tend to confirm the Leridon, et al observation that mean partner numbers for gays are skewed upward by a small group of highly promiscuous people.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The real problem here is there is no lifestyle that comes with the territory of being gay outside of sexual/relationship preference for members of the same sex, and suggesting otherwise is no less bigoted than suggesting that listening to rap music, having children out of wedlock, and eating watermelon is the "black lifestyle." Statistical trends don't make for a class of people's lifestyle.

Yes, well, that's why I said "gay lifestyle" rather than "the gay lifestyle". I don't think it's unfair to generalize about statistic lifestyle trends in a particular group. The real problem comes when people assume that there's just one, monolithic lifestyle, and especially when they use that to judge and condemn the entire group.

[_Joseph]

aluminum wrote: "That's not an argument. That's just saying, "My side won." In my State, the public has spoken. They don't want gays getting married."
***********************

Bet his state would be very polite if they were to vote on equal rights for blacks too.

[_BartBurk]

aluminum wrote: "That's not an argument. That's just saying, "My side won." In my State, the public has spoken. They don't want gays getting married."
***********************

Bet his state would be very polite if they were to vote on equal rights for blacks too.

The interesting thing is that most blacks vote against gay marriage. They see a distinction between the civil rights struggles of minority races and think that the push for gay marriage is not equivalent to their fight.

http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/

[_Buffalo]

aluminum wrote: "That's not an argument. That's just saying, "My side won." In my State, the public has spoken. They don't want gays getting married."
***********************

Bet his state would be very polite if they were to vote on equal rights for blacks too.

The interesting thing is that most blacks vote against gay marriage. They see a distinction between the civil rights struggles of minority races and think that the push for gay marriage is not equivalent to their fight.

http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/

Everyone has to have an "other" to keep down.

[_Morley]

The interesting thing is that most blacks vote against gay marriage. They see a distinction between the civil rights struggles of minority races and think that the push for gay marriage is not equivalent to their fight.

http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/

According to Allport's seminal work, The Nature of Prejudice, minorities tend to adopt the prejudices of the dominant culture, except those regarding their own group.

[_stemelbow]

According to Allport's seminal work, The Nature of Prejudice, minorities tend to adopt the prejudices of the dominant culture, except those regarding their own group.

coming from a place where we'd be better off without prejudices and bigotry that's pretty discouraging news you give, Debbie Downer.

[_Daniel2]

No, but eventually the social pressure to do it will make any church that doesn't look backward and bigoted. Eventually there WILL be gay marriages in the temple. The church will cave to pressure, like it always does.

I agree, Buffalo, that no government will ever force any church to alter their doctrine to allow same-sex marriage, and that as social pressure continues to grow, Christian churches (including the LDS Faith) will eventually (after potentially several decades) alter on their own to incorporate same-sex couples, of some kind, merely as a matter of self-preservation (given that people are likely to be less and less invested in Faiths that begin to feel out-of-step with social values).

Ironically, I think LDS consciousness will evolve to the point of admitting that evethough "gender is an essential aspect of pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal identity and purpose," past understanding of what that meant was limited, and that dual genders are no longer required to procreate. After all, as modern science eventually allows same-sex couples do to physically procreate (as is just around the corner), I believe that eventually people's concept of spiritual procreation will evolve to understand that an exalted couple will have the godly power to procreate, as well. After all--Elohim and Mary supposedly procreated without intercourse; not to mention apparently the procreation of Adam and Eve (who presumably may not even have had an internal gestational period)--so it follows that a deified a same-sex couple would have unimaginable procreative powers that limited human understanding historically couldn't conceive of.

My view,
Daniel2