Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

We're talking about adults having the same rights as other adults. Toddlers, really?

I was speaking to a general principle. The example of toddlers was just one of numerous analogies I could have used to make the same point. Did you get the point? If not, see below.

In other words, let's restrict human rights because of "guesstimates." I think it was James Madison who said that, right?

I said nothing about "human rights." I was speaking about same-sex marriage, which isn't a "human right," but rather a recently conferred right.

If the government is going to discriminate based on guesses, maybe it's best not to grant approval or incentives to anyone. Heaven knows the costs of heterosexual marriage are astronomical and these days the benefits are negligible.

It isn't just based on guesses. The educated guesstimates were only in regards to the potential financial costs. See below.

Oddly enough, however, marriage has never been legally defined as between a single man and a single woman until recently, when religious conservatives wanted to make sure gays could not "redefine" marriage.

While it is true that it wasn't explicitly defined in the law that way, it was most certainly implicitly understood that way (as evidenced by, among other things, the multi-gender language replete within marital and family law). It wasn't explicitly defined in the law because it was so obvious as to go without say. Only in recent years, when various parties have chosen to ignore the obvious, that it necessitated explicitly defining the term in the law.

So, gay people can't demonstrate adequate relationship competency such that they would qualify for marriage. Wow, that's just wrong on so many levels.

Your extrapolation is certainly wrong. The point of the toddler analogy wasn't regarding homosexual competency any more than it was in regards to homosexual age, but as clearly stated in one of the paragraphs to follow: "The point being, governmental licensing and regulations don't occur in a vacuum. Presumably there is a rational basis behind them."

Governments got into the business of sanctioning marriage to protect property rights. Show me a single reference to a government that gave legal status to marriage because they thought it would promote societal stability and good.

If, by "property rights" you rightly include inheritances; and given that inheritances were typically a function of bloodlines, and since bloodlines can be difficult to establish within a promiscuous society, I am sure you are intelligent enough to see the connection.

Furthermore, here are several references.

"The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children." (See Roman Marriage)

"Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (lex Julia de adulteriis)." (See Moral Legislation of Agustus)

Here is part of the ruling in Hernedez v Robles:

"We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

"The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally [*4]offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

"There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule—some children who never know their fathers, or their{**7 NY3d at 360} mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes—but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

I can provide other examples, but hopefully this will suffice.

I will address the rest of your response when I get time (perhaps tomorrow), along with clarifying further the need for a rational basis for laws, including those that confer rights.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

We can certainly get into endless and counterproductive lexical wars over the word "result" and this by either focusing within the definition on the word "consequence" or by focusing on the word "follow."

That, or we can accept in good faith that I, as the author, had in mind the meaning of "follow" when I used the word "result".

If not, I will be pleased to change the offending phrasing in my blog post so as to quail this tempest in a teapot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

We can certainly get into endless and counterproductive lexical wars over the word "result" and this by either focusing within the definition on the word "consequence" or by focusing on the word "follow."

That, or we can accept in good faith that I, as the author, had in mind the meaning of "follow" when I used the word "result".

If not, I will be pleased to change the offending phrasing in my blog post so as to quail this tempest in a teapot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A major problem in dealing with Wade seems to be that he likes to write in a highly structured and pretentiously analytical style - but when you try to take it seriously, you may find that the way he is using words is simply not the way that educated people normally use them. If you tell him so, he protests and fights against admitting it - and then does a backflip and tries to suggest that somehow it is his interlocutors that are at fault for being so fussy.

And by the way, 'quail' as a verb is non-transitive, and means something like 'to show fear or apprehension'. As a noun, it refers to a bird. The word Wade wants is 'quell'.

[Guest]

To understand the suffix in this usage, you must stop thinking of "fear" as the only meaning. An anglophile likes English people. An anglophobe dislikes them (it's not fear here).

Since I don't dislike homosexuals, my question still stands.

It's homosexuality that a homophobe dislikes or opposes. All the effort you put into your writings is proof of your strong opposition and aversion to homosexuality.

Face it. You're a homophobe.

And the way your arguments are worded here and on the blog indicates that your homophobia is focused on male-male relationships. But don't fret, this is true of a lot of men (including the men who wrote the Old Testament, who said next to nothing about lesbian activity in all their rabid condemnations).

[_Some Schmo]

And by the way, 'quail' as a verb is non-transitive, and means something like 'to show fear or apprehension'. As a noun, it refers to a bird. The word Wade wants is 'quell'.

No man, he meant quail, I assure you. To quail a tempest in a teacup means to fly in and do something about it. I'm sorry if you've never heard of that, but it's perfectly acceptable where I come from.

Why are you being so fussy?

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_SteelHead]

"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." - Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

[_krose]

Also, what is it, exactly, about having two opposite-sex parents that you think is inherently better for children?

I explain this in my blog post on Same-Sex Marriage--Blurs Critical Ma;e/Female Distinction.

Not really. You parrot a talk show host and make some baseless assertions, such as "gender confusion" in children. It's not anything close to an explanation supported by real evidence.

Yeah, men and women are different, and many societies have been dividing tasks a certain way for a while. No kidding. But those irrefutable facts do nothing to prove the claim.

[_krose]

Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

No I don't, not in the sense that the general role of 'mother' enables any person in that role to confer significant benefits that a person in the role of 'father' cannot confer. That is not my experience as a parent.

If however you say that each parent, being a unique individual with unique perceptions, abilities and experiences, may be able to confer (some) benefits that the other parent may not confer so well - then I'd think that was quite likely.

Of course - and this is another essential insight you get from actually being a parent (sorry to have to stress that to Wade) - children don't just sit there waiting for people to 'confer benefits' on them. Even before they can talk they are already taking an active role in shaping their relations with their parents, and so long as the parents are not callous brutes it is often the parents who will end up having benefits 'conferred on' them, as well as finding that the child may want other 'benefits conferred' than they think the child needs, and is disinclined to accept what the parents want to give it. And each child in the family will be different ...

Well said. I agree completely.

[_krose]

Just for fun...

Rightist LUNCs (Laws of Unintended Consequences) - Foibles of right-wing reactionaries:

- Orrin Hatch pushes through a federal law to allow non-academic clubs and groups to use public school resources. The intention is to let Christian Bible study groups meet in schools. However, it also opens the door for Muslim groups and (worse) gay student groups to legally meet in schools. D'oh!

- Louisiana residents pass a constitutional amendment that makes gun purchase restrictions unconstitutional. However, it also invalidates all their laws against convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters owning guns. D'oh!

And I could go on...

[_Darth J]

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?

Yes, you did. Your blog is titled "Leftist LUNC's." If your intent was to communicated any idea other than that this was just a liberal issue, you would have simply called it "unintended consequences of same-sex marriage," not "LEFTIST unintended consequences of same-sex marriage." Your blog also identifies no proponents of same-sex marriage other than those whom you vaguely call "liberals." When you unfailingly label this is as supported "liberals" and the claimed unintended consequences as being "leftist," the meaning of your words is that you are saying this is 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?

Yes. What you're attempting to do on your ridiculous blog is no different than presenting a list of alleged demographic problems about inner city blacks to suggest that black people should not have the right to vote. Or presenting a list of problems within the LDS community to suggest that Mormons should not have the same right to free exercise of religion that everyone else has.

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.

Pleeze lurn two reede: "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."

Tell me specifically a legal right or duty in Dallin H. Oaks' current marriage that could not be exercised or carried out by two males or two females.

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.

"Voting" is a gerund, Wade. Your understanding of English leaves something to be desired.

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.[/quote]

That is not the case of rule vs. exception, because there is no "rule" to which an exception is being made. A marriage between first cousins under § 30-3-1(2) is every bit as legally valid as a marriage between two Mormons who get married in the temple and have 10 kids, or two atheists who get married by a justice of the peace and have no kids. All three of these marriages have equal legal validity.

So, anyway, I believe the issue you were about to address is why are certain marriages in Utah only valid if the parties cannot reproduce, if marriage is about children.

It does not matter whether or not society has generally viewed married heterosexuals having children as a good thing. Heterosexuals are not required to have children to be married. And people are not required to be married to have children. As soon as any jurisdiction in the United States makes having children, or having the ability to have children, a legal element of marriage, you can babble about this to your heart's content. But children are a separate issue from whether a marriage is legally valid.

Just ask Russell M. Nelson and his current wife.

the several millennial-year-old definition of marriage

Since 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.

And I am inviting you to demonstrate the provenance of this alleged "general or essential definition of marriage."

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?

No. (I provided documentation for the 6% figure)

It really is a shame that you either don't read your own links, or don't understand what they say, or both. In wading (no pun intended) through your Gish gallop of links, eventually one discovers that your source for this assertion is the 2010 U.S. census. There are significant methodological problems in how the Census Bureau arrived at its estimated number of same-sex couples in the United States.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2010/1 ... sex-couple

In other words, you are making an assumption based on unreliable data.

By the way, Wade, here is what your reasoning looks like:

The LDS Church claims to have 14,782,473 members---at least on paper---in the world.

The current population of the Earth is estimated to be over 7 billion people. Rounding down to 7 billion:

14,782,473/7,000,000,000 = 0.21% of the human race is LDS (at least on paper). Was it all worth it, when only a measly 0.21% of the human race has joined or was born into your church, Wade? And why should Latter-day Saints have the right to free exercise of religion, when they are such a tiny fragment of the population of this planet?

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.

Great! I appreciate you conceding the point that granting equal protection of law to a group of people whose lifestyle you feel is sinful does not deny you your freedom of religion.

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.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1968)

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect." Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728. This has been the interpretation of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision within the Amendment's broad command.

You’re very welcome to demonstrate where the U.S. Supreme Court has ever ruled otherwise.

But if opinions differ on the fundamental meaning of the Establishment Clause, then why can't public school teachers teach that the Book of Mormon is a work of 19th-century fiction that has no basis in reality? Go ahead, make your case as to why they can't, while simultaneously maintaining that the meaning of the Establishment Clause is subjective.

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.

Of course it does. You would not be wringing your hands over the supposed collapse of morality caused by gay married couples if you were not assuming that your morals are universal. But now that you're conceding that morals are not universal, you are abandoning your argument about the loss of morality being an "unintended consequence of same-sex marriage."

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.

Therefore, you are conceding that your assertions about the supposed loss of morality caused by same-sex marriage are irrelevant. You don't get to have it both ways: that your sexual taboos are not universal, but also that people failing to subscribe to your sexual taboos is a cognizable harm to society.

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.

Funny thing about that: your own links don't support that assertion. Here's the page on your blog of idiocy where you assert a correlation between legal recognition of same-sex marriage and social ills: http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... -ills.html

And by the way, you are in fact claiming a cause-and-effect relationship. The title of your blog is "Unintended CONSEQUENCES." Maybe after you find someone to explain to you what a gerund is, that person would be kind enough to grab a dictionary and tell you what the word "consequence" means.

Let's take your Gish gallop about the supposed rates of domestic violence among same-sex married couples far surpassing the rates of domestic violence for married heterosexual couples as an example of how your links do not support your assertions. Your first link is to the Family Research Council, which is an ideological "think" tank. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 (Note: when you cite the Family Research Council as a source for sociological data, you automatically fail.)

Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Married Couples

A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.

A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

Your FRC article goes on to make similar comparisons between married heterosexual couples and unmarried gay couples. Those are not valid comparisons. They are instead shamelessly disingenuous. If a serious researcher is trying to compare the longevity of heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships, then he or she is going to compare married couples to married couples or unmarried couples to unmarried couples. The FRC's obvious category mistake is as ridiculous as comparing gay couples who have children to infertile heterosexual couples in order to claim that gay people have more children than straight people do.

That's also not relevant to the legal validity of a marriage. Kim Kardashian was married to Kris Humphries for 72 days before she filed for divorce. Yet they were still just as legally married during those 72 days as a couple who has been married for 50 years. If this is the way you want to go, then your logic means that Kim Kardashian is also a case study against legalizing heterosexual marriages.

The same category mistake is repeated and compounded when the FRC goes on to compare surveys about marital fidelity among heterosexuals to sexual promiscuity among male homosexuals. The FRC first refers to surveys of married heterosexual couples. The Parade Magazine one is my favorite. I'm sure a total stranger calling you up to ask if you cheat on your spouse is going to yield nothing but honest answers.

Then the FRC compares that to homosexuals. One study is from Holland, finding that "coupled" gay men in Holland had an average of 8 sex partners per year. Wade, tell me how "coupled" gay men in Holland extrapolates to married gay men in the United States. Why don't we compare apples and apples and look at married gay couples in the United States versus married straight couples in the United States?

Oh, and Wade: when a couple mutually agrees that they can have trysts with third parties, by definition they are not cheating on each other. So there's also that small problem of trying to compare people who have promised exclusive monogamy to people who have not in order to assert the tautology that people who have different ideas of exclusivity in a relationship don't act the same way regarding exclusivity in a relationship.

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

Classic sounds a lot better than "antiquated," doesn't it? The study they're talking about is from 1978. The U.S. is a very different place for gay people in 2013 than it was in 1978. The cohort of openly gay people who would be willing to respond to a study like this in 1978 is vastly different from who would respond to that study in the 2000’s or the 2010’s.

Wade, how about we look at a survey of Mormons in, say, 1977 as to whether they think black men should be leaders in the LDS Church, and then use those survey answers to make a claim about racism among members of the LDS Church today? You would agree that that would be perfectly legitimate methodology, right?

Also, this out-of-date survey does not support your assertion that “the rates among homosexuals for those things have tended to go up when governments promote same-sex marriage or the like.” Governments were not promoting same-sex marriage or the like in 1978.

And then there are survey responses like this: "A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." Yeah, that is prima facie BS. It's not a matter of whether the respondents really said that, but whether what they said is believable. If you think those guys really had sex with a thousand other guys, then I'm sure you think that the claims in Wilt Chamberlain's autobiography are true, too. For one thing, how on earth would that be able to find that many gay people to have one-night stands with? Especially since you also assert that gays are just a tiny fraction of the population? Did you think at all about attempting to reconcile your various claims before you posted them? I'm going to be charitable and say that you did not think this through. The prospect that you actually did think this through, and yet still survived to adulthood, is too depressing to contemplate.

Then the FRC volunteers this tidbit from Vermont:

This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.

So what?

What percentage of infertile people in Utah decide to marry their first cousins, Wade? Would you speculate that it is 21%--that's nearly one out of four--of the infertile middle-aged in Utah who marry their first cousins? Less than that, maybe? Because those types of marriages are still legally valid in Utah, regardless of how many people take advantage of the opportunity. So again---so what about Vermont?

By the way, Wade, how many gay couples in Vermont refused to enter a civil union on principle, because they are holding out for full-on marriage and won't settle for separate but equal? Show me where your figures control for that variable.

This Vermont thing is also yet another category mistake, as are the references to Sweden and other countries. If the FRC is trying to assert something---and God knows what the relevance is---about the level of commitment within same-sex unions, then they should be looking at the dynamics within the 21% of gay people in Vermont who have entered civil unions.

Your next link is this: http://www.impactprogram.org/researcher ... QgodHy8ASg

You have a couple of serious problems here, Wade. The first is that suicide rates in gay teenagers are not relevant to same-sex marriage. I mean, you're obviously trying to make it relevant, by attempting to show that gay people are categorically mentally ill. Of course, if we're going to use this kind of reasoning, then we should talk about the correlation about religious activity and obesity, and about the specific correlation between membership in the LDS Church and being overweight:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... tml?pg=all

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6351 ... avier.html

According to your reasoning, we should evaluate whether it's a good idea to let Mormons have freedom of religion in light of statistical data showing that religious activity generally, and LDS activity in particular, are correlated with significant health risks. Right, Wade? Because you're all about intellectual honesty, so we can apply the same standards for groups of people you don't like to groups of people you do like. Right?

Anyway, back to your non sequitur about gay teenagers and suicide and same-sex marriage. The second problem you've got is your assumption that homosexuality is inherently a source of suicidal ideation, which the data you volunteered do not support. You know that video on your link there? It says that one reason for the higher rates for gay teenagers is that gay teenagers are more likely to report a suicide attempt. That means that they are more likely to report, not that they are in fact more likely to attempt suicide.

The people who conducted the study you’re referring to also explicitly say that victimization of LGBT teenagers---like when they are bullied or ridiculed or rejected by loved ones---is an important predictor of rates of self-harm. That means that the way people in society treat people is strongly correlated with LGBT teenagers attempting suicide. This in fact a very strong argument in favor of granting equal protection of law to gay people, because the negative effects of marginalizing them are empirical. The study found that each incident of an LGBT teenager being bullied because of his or her sexual orientation increased the rate of self-harm by two and a half times, but when they are supported, "that risk goes way down" (this starts around the 3:00 time count on the video). So not only is your attempt to show that gay people are inherently mentally ill not supported by the data, or any conceivable rational analysis of the data, your desire for gay people not to be treated the same as everyone else is demonstrably harmful to them. YOUR OWN LINK SHOWS THIS.

Your next link is this: http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

So, Wade, you'll agree with me that CARM is an accurate source of information about various groups of people, right? Or is it that CARM is reliable for groups you don't like, but unreliable for groups you do like?

CARM uncritically cites that same 1978 study that is not only ludicrously dated as what it means to be openly gay in the United States, but fatuously accepts the claims of some respondents to have had anonymous gay sex with hundreds of partners. Again, it's not a matter of whether some respondents actually said that, but whether their answers are credible. Where would you speculate all these partners are coming from, Wade?

And then CARM cites the comparison between married heterosexuals and unmarried homosexuals, which as previously noted is a particularly fatuous category mistake.

Next, you have this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663

Wade, when you just cite the abstract of a study in order to support a conclusion, you're doing it wrong. Really wrong. And even then, the abstract doesn't support you. What is says is that "Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married" (my underline). That doesn't mean it actually happens more. It only means that victims report it more frequently. So Wade, tell me what this study said about what dynamics would influence a legally married couple to keep domestic violence a secret, versus a couple who is not married and can more easily separate. What did the study say about what variables it controlled for to see if openly gay people are simply more willing to talk about domestic violence? You of course actually read this story, so I'm sure you have these answers.

Then you cite another abstract for a study you did not read (note: fail): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775776/

And even then, the abstract gainsays your assertions. Here is what it said:

Overall, there were no differences in health and quality-of-life outcomes between same-sex and opposite-sex IPV victims; in urban areas, however, same-sex victims were more than twice as likely as were female opposite-sex victims to report poor self-perceived health status (Table 2). Male opposite-sex IPV victims were less likely to report more than 7 days of poor mental health in the past 30 days than female opposite-sex IPV victims, although this could be an artifact of underreporting by males.

Let's remind ourselves: THERE WERE NO DIFFERENCES IN HEALTH AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE OUTCOMES BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX IPV VICTIMS. And the differences in nominal rates are best explained by a relative willingness to report, not an actual rate of incidence. THAT IS WHAT YOUR LINK SAYS.

Then you go to Conservapedia. Going to Conservapedia for scientific data has approximately the same validity as going to an astrologer to get data about cosmology. http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

Their first assertion is that homosexuality cannot be caused by genes, because in a 1952 survey, a couple of researchers found that in 29 of 79 cultures they looked at, homosexuality was "rare or absent." It takes a special kind of stupid to make this claim. If homosexuality were merely cultural, it is curious that it was present in so many diverse cultures. And since sexual orientation is largely a social construct, like race, then of course some cultures are going to have different ideas about how to define whether a person is a homosexual. Also, in case you were not aware of this, the world was a little bit different for openly gay people in 1952 than it is in 2013. Maybe---just maybe!---people were a little more reticent to admit to homosexuality back in 1952.

And since homosexuality has no biological basis, I guess giraffes consciously choose to be homosexual.

By the way, Wade, biological traits in an individual come from more than just genes. Maybe you could take a biology class one of these days.

If you would like me to explain the speciousness of the other assertions in your Conservapedia entry, please ask.

Then you have a broken link to http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_fi ... estyle.pdf

I'm sure the "Traditional Values Coalition" applies only the most rigorous scientific methodology in gathering whatever data we were supposed to see here.

Then you have an editorial from NARTH, and although I am sure you are quite familiar with this organization, it nevertheless suffers from the slight problem that nobody in the social sciences takes it seriously: http://www.narth.com/docs/concluded.html

Yes, Wade, most AIDS patients are gay men, as NARTH reports. Similarly, as noted above, actively religious people are more likely than the general population to be obese, and Mormons are more likely than the general population to be overweight. Therefore, freedom of religion should be restricted because religion is associated with an unhealthy lifestyle. That's what your reasoning means.

By the way, 55% of heterosexual cases of AIDS patients are black males. http://caps.ucsf.edu/factsheets/heterosexual-men/

Therefore, this data suggests that black males should not be allowed to marry. Right, Wade? You're saying that about gay people, so logical consistency says you think this, too, if your reasoning is consistent.

James Phelan, the therapist who claims to cure people of being gay, the absence of scientific evidence notwithstanding, also cites a study about STD's among gay people. Let us assume that is true---and we'll have to assume, because he doesn't actually show the data or the analysis of the data. This would be a very strong argument for same-sex marriage, since, like heterosexual marriage, it would give legal protection and benefits to monogamous relationships that are much less likely to involve behaviors that spread STD's. You know, one of the rationales for heterosexual marriage you assert in this thread.

Then Phelan tells us that "50% of gays admit to illicit drug use." Fifty per cent of what gays? Urban gays, all gays everywhere, adolescent gays, middle-aged gays in committed relationships, gays who are legally married.....what? And if it is supposed to mean all gays everywhere, which Phelan imples, since we don't really know how many gays there are, how do we know that half of them are using illicit drugs? To whom did they make this admission? And are they they admitting to current drug use, or drug use in the last month, or using drugs once in their entire lives?

For comparison, the federal government thinks that 8.7% of the people in the U.S. over age 12 had used illicit drugs within a month of being asked in 2011. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/d ... ide-trends

So Wade, since you are the one using Phelan's assertions to support your own assertions, how about if you explain what exact parameters he is claiming about illicit drug use? Same with what data he is relying on to claim that lesbians spend more time in bars and drink more than straight females. Just go right ahead and explain how he arrived at that figure. Go ahead and refer to the study he is referencing---which you have not read.

Then we are told that 50-60% of gay men have had unprotected anal sex. How about that, Wade? How many heterosexual people have ever engaged unprotected sex, by the way? (His statement is "have had," not "do have.")

And then he says this:

Consistency in studies show casual partnering increasing, not decreasing (which might be expected considering there is an increase in society acceptance of homosexuals), as evidenced in reports about weekend resorts, public sex environments, bath houses, e-dating, and circuit parties.

I don't know about you, but nothing says "serious social scientist" to me more than reference to undocumented, unverifiable anecdotes.

This is my favorite, though:

Suicidation, molestation, and violence were other factors found to be disproportionately higher in the homosexual subgroup.

Yeah, Wade. They are disproportionately the victims of those things. So thank you for sharing your great idea to show your compassion for these people by suggesting that society continue to marginalize them.

And then he finishes by suggesting that sexual orientation is fluid for some people, which very few people dispute, and which does not mean that homosexuality can be "cured." And even if you accept, contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus, that homosexuality is a choice, so what? Some people choose to leave the LDS Church, and there are varying levels of faith among those who remain in the LDS Church. Therefore, Mormons are not entitled to equal protection of law. I already know that you agree with this reasoning, because it is in fact your own reasoning---just that you only want it applied to gay people, not Mormons.

And your final link in this particular string is this: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

Several studies suggest that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals, although not to the level of a serious pathology. Discrimination may help fuel these higher rates.

A study found lesbians reported equally strong levels of mental health as their heterosexual sisters and higher self-esteem.

A new study of gay and lesbian youth finds that they are only slightly more likely than heterosexual youth to attempt suicide, refuting previous research that suggested much higher rates.

Let me remind you, Wade, that you are explicitly saying that the above supports your assertion that gay people have higher rates of mental illness than straight people.

Reeding compreehenshun: you do not haz it.

The data contradict previous findings that there are no significant differences in the mental health of heterosexuals and LGB people, adds Cochran, who notes she is concerned that these findings may give ammunition to people who want to falsely promulgate the argument that gay people are by nature mentally ill.

For one thing, she says, "these are certainly not levels of morbidity consistent with models that say homosexuality is inherently pathological." For another, the data simply don't prove either pro- or anti-gay arguments on the subject, whether it's that the inherent biology of homosexuality causes mental illness or that social stigma provokes mental illness in LGB people, she says.

Let me remind you again, Wade, that you are explicitly saying that the above supports your assertion that gay people have higher rates of mental illness than straight people.

In a study that examines possible root causes of mental disorders in LGB people, Cochran and psychologist Vickie M. Mays, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, explored whether ongoing discrimination fuels anxiety, depression and other stress-related mental health problems among LGB people. The authors found strong evidence of a relationship between the two.

Let me remind you, Wade, that you are explicitly saying it is in the public concern to continue discriminating against this group of people.

Anyway, Wade, that is just one string following one assertion in your idiotic blog. Your other sources purporting to support your other assertions are equally misplaced. I cordially invite you to pick any set of your links relating to one of your claims, and I will demonstrate how your citations do not support your claims, as I did with the ones above.

Here's one of my favorite statistics you share: http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... -ills.html

A 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?

No, Wade, I know for a fact there were no homosexual marriages in the United States in 1994. If you want to claim that homosexuals will not be faithful in marriage like you fantasize that heterosexual marriages necessarily are--and that is exactly what you are trying to imply--then you need to prove that married homosexuals cheat on their spouses. Since you are the one who is asserting that homosexual relationships are inherently unfaithful, show me the data comparing adultery in homosexual marriages to adultery in heterosexual marriages.

Alternatively, I will be happy to review the practices of the FLDS Church in order to argue that members of the LDS Church are likely to be pedophiles. So either agree that it would be valid for me to do that, or admit that you are making a major category error.

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.

You are most definitely doing that. For example, you say that faithfulness is "axiomatic" to marriage. That is a modern conceit. Tell me how it was taken for granted that married men would patronized courtesans in Renaissance Venice, for example. ONE example. (If you want a really fun example, we could talk about what marriage was like in Sparta.) But then you concede that adultery happens in heterosexual marriages, but that isn't a barrier to legal recognition of heterosexual marriages. Yet somehow, "infidelity" in a consensually open, unmarried gay relationship is supposed to be evidence that gay people should not be allowed to marry. Not only is this a double standard, it's a non sequitur.

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

Yes, I did acknowledge that. However, I am not sure what you assume it contradicts in what I said. Please advise.

It's not a contradiction, it's a double standard. If you were applying the same standard, then you would be saying that unmarried heterosexual couples who have trysts with third parties are evidence that heterosexual marriage should not be legally recognized. Again, what you are saying is both a double standard and a non sequitur.

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).

You are obviously attempting to argue against same-sex marriage. A parade of horribles that you explicitly assert to be caused by gay people ("Consequences") is nothing other than that argument. I am not playing your disingenuous, passive-aggressive game. That's for people in your church, not in the real world.

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 ... Innovation

In 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?

One, you are suggesting this article presents evidence against same-sex marriage, and it explicitly says it does not. Two, you are explicitly saying that gay people don't care about the commitment and support that marriage provides, and this article refutes that. So there's just that small matter of it saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming it says.

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.

Good to hear, Wade! Then you have hereby conceded that none of these supposed negative consequences are relevant to whether same-sex couples have the right to marry like everyone else. That unfortunately makes your blog irrelevant under its own terms, and begs the question of why you titled this thread "Same-sex Marriage," but oh, well.

Oh, and guess what? Some heterosexual married couples have open marriages, too. E.g., http://nymag.com/lifestyle/sex/annual/2005/15063/

I was aware of this. In fact, I acknowledge it in one of my comparative statistics.

Yes, and you think this argues against same-sex marriage, but not heterosexual marriage. But now you're conceding that it's irrelevant, so never mind.

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.

I would like to see a case from the United States Supreme Court that articulated the heretofore unknown grounds of "exception vs. the rule." Thanks in advance.

Also, Wade, there is no exception. A marriage is legally valid or it is not. That's why an annulment and a divorce are different proceedings based on different grounds. No law anywhere makes any distinction between a childless geriatric marriage and a fertile marriage between young people, or between a strictly monogamous couple and one that mutually agrees to an open marriage. They are all legal marriages, period, full stop.

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.

I see. So according to you, an unscientific, unreliable survey is not statistically significant. But if you were to take a bunch of unscientific, unreliable surveys that are not statistically significant, somehow that would justify an inference about a population generally. That's the meaning of the words you said.

You might want to get a second opinion on how epidemiology works.

"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?

"Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman." You're decidedly failing to say why. Why is the legalized domestic partnership called "marriage" only between a man and a woman? A naked appeal to tradition doesn't cut it.

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.

Curious, since same-sex marriage is also 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.

And traditional Christians are also simply acknowledging history. But I do enjoy that you have no sense of shame or irony in claiming to acknowledge history, when you belong to a church that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in attempt to redefine marriage.

"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.html

Reports 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.

Deere Prufessur Wayde:

LGBTNation dissputez teh claime dat pedofillia iz on teh rize aftur ghey marruj wuz legulized. Ruporting dat a claime iz beeing maide iz knot teh sayme az sayeeng dat teh claime iz troo.

Sinseerlee,

Teh Lurn Two damned Reede Foundashun

Your idiotic blog also copies and pastes shrill recitations of religious value judgments---not fact---speculating that same-sex marriage "will sanction procreative methods that treat children like commodities." http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/07 ... ffect.html

I guess one mans documented and reasonably argued conclusion" is another mans "religious value judgement." To each their own.

That's right, Wade. You keep believing that your blog presents a documented and reasonably argued conclusion. Keep reaching for that rainbow.

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.

The words you said here mean you are conceding that even if your claims were true, they would be irrelevant.

However, were I to have made such an argument, your conclusion would not follow because of exception vs. the rule.

There is no exception to the rule. The Ohio Supreme Court has given legal sanction to heterosexual couples buying and selling children like a commodity. A heterosexual married couple can pay a woman to gestate babies for them. That's the rule. I really do look forward to the case law creating this "exception to the rule" standard you keep asserting.

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?"

Your entire blog.

Let me guess: they're not true Scotsmen, right?

You guessed wrong.

Glad to hear it, Wade. So you agree with me that political conservatives can support same-sex marriage.

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.

Wade, thanks again for insisting that your blog is irrelevant under its own terms. But I'm afraid that this "exception vs. the rule" BS just isn't going to work for you here---or anywhere else. The childless geriatric marriages of two of your favorite televangelists are not legally different in any way whatsoever than the marriage of a young couple that has five kids. The law makes no distinction between the two. There is no legal element of marriage, in Utah or anywhere else in the U.S., that requires the parties to have children, or to have the ability to have children. "Children are irrelevant the legal validity of a marriage" is not an exception. It is in fact 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.

I know, Wade. There is invariably a 1:1 correlation between someone conclusively demonstrating that you're full of crap, and your intents and points becoming increasingly vague.

And about that "some of your sources" quip: what you're doing on your blog with the "HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE" is a Gish gallop.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call BS on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

All of your "HERE" links either do not support your assertions, contradict your assertions, are complete BS, or are a combination of the foregoing. Please pick any of your assertions on your blog followed by a one of your strings of links, and I will happily show that to be the case, like I did above.