Darth J wrote:I like how your blog post immediately shoots itself in the foot by characterizing same-sex marriage as a "liberal" issue. Wade, tell me how Ted Olson is a flaming liberal.
Did I say it was ONLY a liberal issue?
And congratulations not only on your inability to tell the difference between a legal issue and a political issue---whether constitutional equal protection guarantees require same-sex couples to have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples---but your inability to recognize that there is a difference.
Oh?
Then we move on to your demonstrably false assertion:
And, they have intended to provide "marriage equality" to homosexuals by radically altering the legal definition of marriage.
There is no "legal definition of marriage" anywhere in the United States that creates rights or duties that depend on the parties being of the opposite sex.
Ever hear of Prop 8? There are a number of states constitutions and state laws that EXPLICITLY define marriage as between a man and a woman. Before 1970, all of the marital laws implicitly defined it as such.
It is no different than "the legal definition of voting" applying only to males prior to the 19th Amendment, or the "legal definition of marriage" in Virginia and other states excluding mixed-race couples prior to
Loving v. Virginia.
Again, as I mentioned to you on another thread, my understanding of English is that verbs are different from nouns.
Here's a fun thing for you to blog about, Wade, that none of our erstwhile defenders of the faith here have ever addressed:
Utah Code. § 30-3-1(2)(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.
If the legal relationship of marriage is about having children, then it is certainly odd that here in Zion, some couples can only be married on condition that they
cannot have children. Feel free to explain that, Wade.
Simple. It is a case of the rule vs. the exception. As a general rule, society has viewed married heterosexuals having children as a good thing. The exception to that rule being incestuous relationships, where there are unique physical and moral concerns that come into play.
the several millennial-year-old definition of marriageSince human history has traditionally included group marriage, arranged marriage, dowries, polygamy, concubinage,
courts allowing husbands to whip their wives, cliterectomies, harems, and so on, I really would appreciate your sharing the anthropolgical basis for suggesting that the modern concept of romantic, egalitarian, monogamous marriage is several millenia old. Thanks in advance.
I was speaking to the general or essential definition of marriage, and not specifically to marital practices or behaviors within marriage or reasons for getting married.
[/quote]Of course, that cuts both ways. If a measly 6% of homosexuals (how do you know how many homosexuals there are, by the way?) are getting married, then was failed opposition to same-sex marriage worth it?[/quote]
No. (I provided documentation for the 6% figure)
And assuming without evidence that 6% of some unknown population of homosexuals is getting married, in what way precisely is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction going to destroy your right to believe that your extraterrestrial primate demigod married Adam and Eve in Missouri some time around 4,000 B.C.E.?
It doesn't--which is why I made no mention of it in my article.
Liberal efforts to decrease health and mortality risks among homosexuals, has resulted in the opposite. But then, "moral ills" begs the question. The first question begged is whether it is the job of the government to give your religious taboos about sexuality the force of law (
the answer is "no").
Opinions differ on that question. To each their own.
The second question being begged is whether everyone else shares your belief that homosexual relationships are immoral, on the basis that Bronze Age Hebrews ascribed their taboos about same to their tribal god. Again, the answer is no. In addition to "secularists" who do not share your dogma, there are churches other than yours that are either not opposed to same-sex marriage or actively in favor of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_o ... x_marriage
My article doesn't assume universal morals.
Perhaps you would like to explain, vis-à-vis the Establishment Clause, why the government should prefer your church's dogma over the dogma of other churches. Good luck!
If I had made that argument, then I would be happy to defend it. I didn't.
It's also interesting that you volunteer claimed statistics about domestic violence, promiscuity, and STD's among gay couples. Those are all major problems with heterosexual couples, too. Therefore, opposite-sex marriage has failed to curb these problems, and should be banned.
Two things: first, the rates for those things among homosexuals is alarmingly disproportionate to heterosexuals; and, second, the rates among homosexuals for those things have tended to go up when governments promote same-sex marriage or the like, whereas the rate of those things among heterosexuals tend to go down when the government promotes and encouraged heterosexual marriage.
Here's one of my favorite statistics you share:
http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... -ills.htmlA national survey discovered that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. (Parade, August 7, 1994, pp. 4–6.)How many jurisdictions in the U.S. recognized same-sex marriage in 1994, Wade?
Why do you ask? Is the survey of "committed relationships" or "legalized relationships?" Are you assuming that there were no committed homosexual relationships in 1994?
But I'm glad to know that faithfulness and commitment are axiomatic to the institution of marriage. That must be why there is essentially no such thing as adultery in places where heterosexual marriages are legal.
My articles doesn't take an all-or-nothing position. In fact, they acknowledge heterosexual problems.
[/quote]In fact, you contradict yourself by conceding that all of the problems you are noting in same-sex marriages are present in heterosexual marriages:
http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... risis.html[/quote]
Yes, I did acknowledge that. However, I am not sure what you assume it contradicts in what I said. Please advise.
If those kinds of problems are a valid argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriage, then logical consistency requires you to agree that those problems are also a valid argument against legal recognition of heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, your blog might like like the incoherent rambling of a learning disabled religious fanatic who has no idea what he's talking about. And we certainly wouldn't want that, would we?
With all due respect, you failed to grasp the over-all message of the same-sex blog posts. It wasn't to argue against same-sex marriage. Rather, it was to spell out some of the unintended negative consequences of same-sex marriage. Hence, the title of the blog: Leftist LUNCs (Law of Unintended Negative Consequences).
http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06/same-sex-marriage-spike-in-social-ills.html
Another study found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40% female, 60% male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47%) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy. Just for fun, let's see what your source for this assertion actually said:
http://www.academia.edu/1484255/Queer_U ... InnovationIn this paper, I draw on thirty in-depth interviews of same-sex spousesresiding in and around Toronto, Canada, to explore how actual same-sex marriages relate to this field of debate. Taken as a whole, these cases defy reduction to the forecasts of either the proponents or opponents of same-sex marriage but, rather, present a more complex sociological picture of assimilation and innovation than developed in the literature.That is, on the one hand, contrary to the social conservative forecast, same-sex spouses perceive civil marriage to provide significant legal, social, and psychological resources that strengthen the dyad, facilitate parenting, and generate a substrate of social support, thereby consolidating the nuclear family and the institution of marriage. On the other hand,contrary to the lesbian and gay assimilationist and critical feminist/queerforecasts, these spouses do not uniformly embrace traditional Western,20th century norms of marriage, including monogamy and a gendered division of labour but, rather, engage in a variety of intentional practices that, in effect, depart from this idealized marital form.It's too bad you did not actually read your source---or understand it if you did---as it contradicts your assertions. What he says about strict monogamy in same-sex marriages, though, means that it contradicts your cherished beliefs about monogamy in marriage---a view that the founder of your religion ironically did not share.
Could you please identify/quote which of my assertions this supposedly contradicts?
The question you fail to recognize, let alone address, is: so what? A couple freely choosing to have an open marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, is irrelevant to the legal validity of that marriage. If the parties freely consented to an open marriage, they would be estopped from asserting adultery as grounds for divorce (seeing as how divorce is an equitable remedy).
The issue of "legal validity" is irrelevant to my blog posts. Rather, my blog posts are concerned with the unintended negative consequences of various legal and political actions, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.
I was aware of this. In fact, I acknowledge it in one of my comparative statistics.
Therefore, heterosexual marriage should be banned.
Again, the articles in question aren't arguing for banning gay marriage. But, even if they were, your conclusion doesn't follow on grounds of exception vs. the rule.
By the way, can you explain the statistical significance of interviewing a few same-sex couples in Toronto, Canada, and extrapolating that to the entire world? Thanks in advance.
When viewed in isolation, it may not have statistical significance. However, when combined with other studies, it has supportive power.
"By legalizing same-sex marriage and altering other marital and moral terms, the fundamental institution of society has subsequently lost some of its appeal and virtue and moral impetus." Truly compelling, Wade. People who share your cherished beliefs are entitled to a circular definition of a word being codified as law.
http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... ional.html.
Could you please point out the alleged circularity?
Says who, incidentally? Who came up with this objective, unchanging definition of marriage that has always been the same throughout human history? Hint: you're not supposed to say it came from your deity, because your argument is supposed to be that there is a rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage that is not rooted entirely in your religious dogma.
While the definition may have religious influence, I would suggest it is a product of social evolution.
Perhaps when you get done kvetching about how you own a particular word just because you have strong feelings about it, you can tell us how it is wrong for Evangelicals to say that Mormons are not Christians.
I made no mention of ownership. I simply acknowledge history.
"With the decline of marriage and family and social morays brought on somewhat by legalizing same-sex marriage...there are other Leftist LUNCs rippling therefrom."See, Wade, the problem is not only are not demonstrating no causal relationship here---the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy---you're not even providing a factual basis for your assertions. For example, clicking on the link next to the above assertion, we go here on your blog:
http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/07 ... ffect.htmlReports are also coming in that pedophilia is on the rise after legalization of gay marriage. This is your source for that claim:
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/10/hass ... -marriage/It is a fundamentalist group of Hassidic Jews that is simply making a naked assertion. YOUR OWN SOURCE provides no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
My source is LGBTNation, who is reporting on Hassidic Jews. Perhaps you are correct in scolding me for trusting what is reported by an LGBT organization.
I guess one mans documented and reasonably argued conclusion" is another mans "religious value judgement." To each their own.
That has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. For example, in 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court held that parental surrogacy contracts are legally valid.
https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs ... o-6750.pdf The parties to the surrogacy contract were all heterosexuals, and the parties paying a woman to gestate babies (that were not genetically related to her) were a heterosexual married couple.
So if the potential for the commoditization for children is so morally repugnant, then heterosexual marriages should be banned.
Again, my blog isn't making an argument against same-sex marriage. It is simply pointing out unintended negative consequences. However, were I to have made such an argument, your conclusion would not follow because of exception vs. the rule.
Then there is this:
Legalizing same-sex marriage by liberals could cost trillions of dollars during the nations financial crisis and spiraling national debt.You're still begging the question that it is only liberals who are in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage.Tell me about lead counsel for the plaintiffs in
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Wade. God knows that if you're one of the founders of the Federalist Society, that just screams "liberal!" And what do you know: not everyone in the Republican Party is opposed to same-sex marriage.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/31/ ... direction/
Again, where did I say "only liberals?"
Let me guess: they're not true Scotsmen, right?
You guessed wrong.
But besides the costs that the tax and other benefits that these marriages will force upon us, let's consider the current marriages of Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson. They have no children. They're not going to have any children. Their current marriages do nothing to benefit society---they're simply marriages of companionship and personal convenience, which do not benefit you, me, or anyone else. Therefore, as the good fiscal conservative that you are, I am sure you will agree that their marriages should not be legally recognized in order to save money in this time of financial crisis and spiraling national debt.
Once again, were my blogs intended as an argument against SSM, then you may have a point. It isn't. And, even were it an argument, your conclusion wouldn't follow because of exception vs. the rule.
Now, even though you clearly didn't grasp the general intent and points behind my posts, I appreciate you reading through my blog and checking some of the sources.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
