Pages

Friday, May 16, 2008

The Problems With Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage was just legalized in California. This follows the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and Canada.

Everyone knows the religious arguments against gay marriage, so I won't expound upon them here. But as I wrote in June 2005:

From a secular point of view, I can't see anything that bars the legalization of gay marriage except for the fact (as reported in The World and I) that they go through as many as 12 or more sexual partners a year on average (even if they're in a 'committed' relationship). Not my business, right? Unless their marriages are almost as frequent as their sex partners. Then it is my business. We would be looking at the potential for a major increase in divorces and the system would be overwhelmed.

'Easy', you say,' hire more people to handle all the divorces! That shouldn't bar their right to get married.' Well, it's not that easy. Because then we're talking about more taxpayer's dollars to hire these people and build (or expand) the courthouses and administrative offices across the country so that we can house them.

'Ah, but what price liberty?' you ask. I would reply that there are times when it is simply not economically feasible to give everyone everything that their hearts desire.


Since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, a host of other problems have arisen. According to this article, they include:

1. The Possibility of Polygamy: Many of the problems stem from the fact that Massachusetts is the only state to recognize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts state law allows residents to file for divorce, but it does not allow out-of-state residents to do so, unless the cause of the divorce-an act of infidelity, for example-occurred here.

Lawyers say this restriction could create some truly knotty legal situations. Say an out-of-state couple wants to divorce, but their state doesn't recognize that they were married in Massachusetts. Could one of them legally marry a heterosexual partner, without divorcing the gay partner? What if that person died and both legal spouses claimed the assets? ''Are you getting the sense it's a mess?" asked Lisa M. Wilson, a Newton lawyer who handles gay divorces.

2. The IRS and Federal Government: Then there's the federal government. For federal tax purposes, alimony is normally deductible for the person paying and counted as income for the person on the receiving end. But same-sex marriages have no standing in the eyes of the IRS. ''We don't recognize gay marriages," said IRS spokeswoman Peggy Riley. Same-sex couples need to file as single people, rather than as a couple, she said, and they can't enjoy the alimony deduction.
3. Alimony and Distribution of Assets: Even seemingly basic aspects of a divorce are more complicated for same-sex couples. A major problem, for instance, arises in calculating the length of relationships, an important factor in a court's decision on how to divide assets. How will a divorce court view a gay couple who lived together for 20 years but were married for only one year? ''Technically, the court could say it's a short-term marriage, but it really is a long-term marriage because they couldn't get married before," said Kauffman. ''There's very little case law and nothing in the statutes that addresses that."

According to this FAQ in the gay site "Love And Pride", I was correct in my initial assessment:

Many gay couples who married shortly after same sex marriage was legalized in their country waited years for their chance. Such couples might be thought to have a higher than usual level of commitment and stability. Yet gay and lesbian couples were divorcing just months after they married – or less.

...As gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, the gay divorce rate will not stabilize for a long time.


In fact, gay divorces in Massachusetts began within 7 months of gay marriage being legalized, according to Fox News.

Gay marriage has been legalized in Sweden, so European demographers Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack did a study on their divorce rates, reporting that gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals. Lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

"Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."

If this pattern is reflected in California, their taxpayers are about to enter a world of hurt. It also affects taxpayers throughout the USA, who must pay taxes to help upkeep Federal courts and Federal laws, which will undoubtedly be drawn into the drama.

This is becoming a very serious issue that will ultimately require the Federal Government to intervene on one side or the other.

74 comments:

Ed Abbey said...

Excellent post. I agree with your general reasoning but I'm not so convinced that gay couples are any more likely to divorce than straight couples. Divorce is much more prevalent across all sectors. I think we as a whole have lost our sense of what marriage actually is, a commitment to each other before God.

As a genealogist, I have to shake my head at what future genealogists are going to have to deal with.

Anonymous said...

You are talking out your ass! I am a heterosexual attorney practicing law in a very conservative community. Divorce rate among heterosexual couples has skyrocketed. Heterosexual couples likewise are having multiple sex partners. Yes, even heterosexual couples are cheating on each other, who would have thought? And how is this a burden on the federal taxpayer? Since when are divorce actions going to federal court. Get a clue.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Anonymous, In fact, you are such an excellent attorney that you proudly use your name in this posting. Apparently this is hardly your specialty, as any attorney would understand how the federal courts could be brought into it. NO? You don't? Time to go back to lawschool, then.

Oh, and don't think we buy it for a minute. You're not heterosexual, you're not an attorney, and you certainly don't know what you're talking about.

Ed, Yeah: Geneology is going to be tough. But, in a way it always has been, since women used to always lose their maiden names upon marriage. That's one reason I belong to the Lucy Stone League. We believe women should keep their own names after marriage, or (at worst) combine their names with their husband's name.

undergroundlogician said...

I don't think "No-Name" attorneys are of the same caliber of say, "No-Name Steaks"! Besides, if he was a man of logic and rhetoric, he would have seen your stats and backed off. Good call, Saur!

By the way, I may be naive here...do attorneys have time to blog? Just wunderin'...

Saur♥Kraut said...

Underground, :D Very true, my friend.

The Lazy Iguana said...

And according to Fox, Obama went to a Madrassa - which was untrue. In fact, a lot of things said on Fox "News" turned out to be made up.

So lets not take any study done by Fox too seriously. That news outlet has serious credibility issues. While all talking head shows have a bias one way or the other - it seems EVERYTHING on Fox, even the "news", has a clear bias. For example, other news networks report that the value of the dollar is down and the economy is on the rocks. Fox will report that America Haters want the value of the dollar to drop, and there was actually GROWTH last quarter! .002% growth, but still! Growth!! So there is no recession!!

Yea.....and my name is Pope Benedict XIV. Because I have a Pope Hat! Must mean I am the Pope right??

I am not buying all this "fags getting married will ruin the nation" crap. First, morals were going to go to hell. But this has already happened without fag marriage.

So now it is going to cost us all money! OH NO!! Why, courts will be clogged with so many cases that regular people will be forced to remain married!

But places like Fox will also say that homos are a very small portion of the population. So how could such a small portion of the population clog the courts? What would Fox say the percentage of homos in the USA is? 10%? 5%? And lets say that 50% of the 10% get married, then 75% get divorced. We are talking a small increase in divorce rates here. Nothing that will clog anything.

I would like Fox to clear this up. Which is it? Will homo weddings clog the courts with divorce cases, or is the homo population so small as to not matter? Because they ARE saying both things. On one hand we can just ignore gays because there are so few of them as to not matter, but on the other hand there are so many that the massive divorce rates will cost us all billions of dollars.

But the two ideas contradict one another. So pick one Fox!

I do not think this issue will effect me in the slightest, so therefore I do not care.

Marriage is a secular legal contract. Face it. It is. I can get married without involving a church or a Bible or anything. Just go to the courthouse, apply for a marriage license, and have a court official stamp it. There. Married. No church, no priest, no mention of God - just a legal contract.

But if the Pope himself flies to Miami and has a wedding mass for me (which would be a neat trick seeing as how I am not Catholic) and declares me married - if I did not obtain that license from the State of Florida then the ceremony is not legal and therefore I am not legally married.

It is all about the license as far as the State and IRS is concerned.

So in this case, why can't fags enter into a legal contract? If they can not enter into one legal contract, why can they enter other contracts? What if they are banned from ALL contracts? Then they would not have to pay credit card bills, or pay off their cars.

Do not buy the Fox propaganda. This issue will not cost you more money. If you are not gay, it will not effect you at all. You will not even notice anything.

Just like the legalization of interracial marriage did not mean the end of white people in America. Sure, there were some mixed race couples. But even today they are the exception not the rule. But back then, all the same things being said about homo marriage was said about mixed race marriage. And it never happened.

This is such a non-issue, kept alive by the right only because they are desperate to retain power and need SOMETHING to hold over the heads of "Christian values" voters.

By the way, there were three special elections for vacant congressional seats held by Republicans. The Republicans lost all three seats.

One seat was in Mississippi and had been held by Republicans for a long time.

They are scared shitless. And so expect Fox to go on and on and on and on about more non-issues, designed to make the "values voters" forget about other more important things.

I do not think it will work.

Edge said...

Someone once challenged me on my blog to give him 10 good reasons non-Biblically based against gay marriage. I did and he pitched a hissy fit on my blog.

You are exactly right. There is a reason we have been paired as male and female for years. And it's interesting that female gay divorce is astronomical.

There is something in every person that happens at 7 years - the average time a gay marriage separates. It's this. Once a child is 7 in cave man days he is old enough to forage for himself or herself. At the end of that 7 year period many couples who don't have kids or do call it quits.

The biggest problem I see is that there is no true recognized definition of marriage. Although there is an understood one that's been around for ages. One man one woman.

Actually, I would think a business partnership would be MUCH better than marriage in some respects.

~Jef

Uncle Joe said...

Some of these comments seem to be alcohol induced.
Not mine. It's not two o'clock yet.

I've got ten minutes!

Anonymous said...

Well...I will say this, I think people should not be denied marriage if they are gay, every person in this country should have equal rights. On the other hand, I do not agree with the lifestyle and I will not support it so that I can be considered a lover of all people and politically correct. For my two year old response, I think its gross. For my adult and christian response, I think it is a sickness and needs to be treated not embraced.

That being said, I do my best not to discriminate against people that are gay.

Ange

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy, you're focusing on a VERY small sentence quoting a news item on Fox. Many other news sources said the same thing. But ignore THAT entirely, if you wish, and focus on the other arguments. If you wish to ignore the statistics, fine by me - but just say that it simply doesn't matter how costly it gets.

Edge, I didn't see your arguments, but you're smart and you reason well, so I'd like to see them. Anyway, you have an excellent point about business partnerships and that's why arranged marriages usually work out better than love matches. (There are stats to back it up).

Uncle Joe, ;o)

Ange, Well, that gets into a very interesting question. What is discrimination? And WHEN does it occur? Much depends on whether or not our culture sees homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, or if we see it as a perversion.

After all, you don't hear anyone scream about the 'rights' of child molestors or polygamists. That's because as a society, we deem those choices to be against societal mores (pronounced 'more-ays').

So the real question, which we as a society have yet to settle, is "is being gay a choice?" and "if so, is it an acceptable one?"

IF you believe that being gay is NOT a choice, then it is something that they can't help and making fun of them (or reviling them) for it would be wrong.

But if it IS a choice, then we are not discriminating when we say we feel that it is a wrong one, and we are not discriminating by discouraging the behavior.

Until we, as a society, makes a concrete decision about that, we will have difficulty making any others.

Anon, With 'all due respect'? What respect would that be, if you are calling me a liar?

Wow, I'm merely a liar by reporting statistics, and what other experts (including gay experts and gay advocates) are saying.

IMHO, a liar would be someone who hides behind an anonymous tag and makes non-factual statements. As a result, I'm deleting your comment.

When you see fit to use a handle that's attached to a blog showing your true beliefs, I'll be happy to publish your comments on MINE.

Incidentally, I don't really want your opinions unless you can back them up with facts.

So, to sum it up: Do some homework, be responsible enough to identify yourself in some fashion, and get back to me on it.

The Lazy Iguana said...

The stats are meaningless. What are the queers being compared to? Who is in the sample? How does anyone know they have X partners per year? And how do we know that is not more or less what single not queer people go through in a year?

We don't.

And if fags can not get married except for one State, how do we compare the divorce rates?

Once again, we can't.

There is not enough data to make any meaningful comparisons. The sample is too small.

daveawayfromhome said...

Have you ever wanted something, whatever it might be, really really bad, but when you finally got it, it turned out to be not as great as you thought it would be? I suspect that's at least part of the explanation for the high level of divorces in the Massachusettes cases.
As for the promiscuity of homosexuals, I'd say it has a lot less to do with perversion and a whole lot more to do with lack of pregnancy. After all, the average number of sexual partners for heterosexuals jumped after the introduction of the birth-control pill, and if the pill was 100% effective, the numbers might just match those of the gays.

But all of the above is thoroughly irrelevant, because really, who cares who marries who? Why is this even a topic of discussion? All the things that are screwed up in this world, and this is what our conservative brethern choose to focus on?
If every single homosexual person disappeared from the planet tomorrow, not only would you probably be very surprised at who was gone, but it would change not one damn problem in this country.
Okay, one problem: Conservative politicians would have to find a new "problem" to distract the electorate from noticing that their "Christian" leadership actually worships money.

And taxes as an arguement? Seriously?
You want to know they real cause of higher divorce rates in the U.S.? It's not homosexuality, it's not a lack of religious faith, it's not the automobile, or rock and roll, or ESPN, or any of that.
It's because we live half again as long as we used to, giving us far more time to become completely different people from those who married. As recently as the 1800s, the odds were pretty good that one parent would die of disease or child-birth before you could really get very sick of your partner. Also, with a smaller population, alternate choices werent quite as available as they are now.
So rather than ban gay marriage, let's ban longivity, or force everyone to live in smaller, more isolated communities.

Ridiculous? Yes, but so is this "controversy". If neighbor Bob wants to marry his boyfriend, it doesnt matter one little bit to me (though I must agree with Ange, when she says "ick" - but that's my problem, not Bob's) or you or anybody, except in that you are making it matter to you.

Yes, things will be more complicated when gay marriage is thrown into the mix. Welcome to the world. Computers make things more complicated, as do automobiles, dry cleaners, dogs and children. You want simple, join the Amish.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy, truly, the stats are not meaningless. I saw them, and believe me when I say I know statistics and am an expert in Mktg. I KNOW how data can be manipulated, but from what I see, there is no manipulation here.

I know this is a sensitive topic for you. Please understand that I DO have friends that are gay, I haven't any personal antagonism toward them, and I'm merely pointing out statistics.

NOW: I am sure that there are gay couples who stay together and remain devoted for many years. I know one such couple, myself, and although they have ups and downs, they remain together. BUT, I am talking about the MAJORITY, not the exceptions.

What I am NOT doing is attacking gay people. I am merely saying that these are the facts as a whole, and the facts can impact us negatively.

Daveawayfromhome, I suspect the same thing (that when marriage was finally available, they found they didn't want it as much as they thought they did). As a matter of fact, I have a friend who's lesbian, and she admits to me privately that she is terrified that they will make marriage legal in HER state, because she doesn't want to feel cornered into marriage by her partner.

Good point about the BC pill stats, BTW. You're correct there. But you're comparing apples and oranges. Here's why:

When the BC pill was available, some heterosexuals saw it as a license to have a lot of unprotected sex. But, as you admit, such sexual activity jumped but it didn't stay that way. In contrast, homosexuality is a very old practice. And it's certainly been wide-spread in America since about the same time as the inception of the BC pill. And yet, their promiscuity remains higher.

Taxes: Yes, I am serious. And your argument doesn't counter mine. There is no doubt that costs will go up. Are you saying that this shouldn't be a factor in decision making? Your arguments about the cause of higher divorce rates don't change the facts that homosexuals do and will have higher ones than heterosexuals, no matter what the reasons.

Gay marriage: Believe it or not, unlike you and Ange, I really don't say 'ick' over it, but perhaps that's because I've grown used to the idea over the years. So the 'ick' factor doesn't come into play in my thoughts here. However, I will be honest and say that I DO believe that being gay is a choice and that it is a choice which goes against my faith. And yet I also believe that we are to act lovingly toward others. That doesn't mean we tell them that what they're doing is OK if it isn't... but we DO say it carefully and we attempt to be as caring as possible.

And, believe it or not, my bigger objection to gay marriage is the monetary impact and additional legal battles that we will find ourselves in.

Your point that computers, autos, dry cleaners, dogs and children make things more complicated in life is invalid. Everything listed (but for the living things) actually makes life significantly EASIER. And children and pets may make it more complicated in the earlier stages, but they become valuable in the later ones. Kids can help take care of parents, kids give parents a meaning in life, kids fulfil a parent's needs. Dogs can become great watchdogs, be stress relievers, and give love.

You are, again, comparing apples and oranges. It SOUNDS good in an argument, until you think about it.

Lee Ann said...

Have a great weekend!
~xo
Lee Ann

doozie said...

It's not necessarily the sanctity of marriage they are fighting for but the principle of the matter which they feel they should be entitled to the same perks as hetero people.

Just like ed said, it's like a spoiled little child who won't stop asking for something and when they get it, it loses it's luster and gets thrown in the corner. So it's the fight, not the spoils they want.

This is not going to go away, and the ONLY way to argue it is through the facts of how it affects our economy. What else does the Government care about ultimately? MONEYMONEYMONEYMONEY

Just wait until we get government paid health insurance...talk about over burdening the system, if everybody that defines themselves as a "couple" gets insurance benefits then it's really not fair for people who are just living together.

Seriously, if people living together for a number of years in a committed relationship choose NOT to get married, they are being punished by the IRS and other sorts of benefits. So in the same token gays are pissed about their situation, why don't the shacked up couples start bitching????

AND what about our social security system? You think they can't pay benefits now? You think the medicare system is overwhelmed? Try adding everyone who wants to be defined as a couple/ie gay marriage?

The screaming babies will get their way, they always do, and we will all pay for it.

doozie said...

And what the EFF is so wrong with Polygamy if we as a country think it's ok to be married to a same sex person? DOUBLE STANDARD

Scott said...

I think that all of the arguments about cost, divorce rate and promiscuity, the IRS and whatever else are just irrelevant points.

The real issue at hand is that Marriage is a Human Right and anybody has the right to choose to get married to whomever they wish (age appropriate of course).

By the rational that it is expensive would we stop allowing people to have a third marriage, because third marriages are much more likely to break up then others and that would burden tax payers. No, not if they are heterosexual.

Denying the right of marriage of Homosexuals is based on a blatant homophobic agenda put forth by the Religious Right. That needs to stop and now!

Uncle Joe said...

You should get your own talk show, Saur.
I can't stand the suspense of waiting for comments.

Jungle Mom said...

Your points are all valid!
I have no ill will toward any particular gay person, but I do see it as a threat to society and our culture in the long run. And being a Christian , I consider it a sin, but no worse than nay other sin, if it not imposed upon another unwillingly.
An yet, I find it ironic that we feel we can re-label 'marriage' when we were not the ones to invent it in the first place.

daveawayfromhome said...

Sorry Saur, but being gay is not a choice, at least not most of the time. That's a fantasy promoted by the Church, but refuted by actual psychology.
I knew a guy in college who was both gay and devoutly christian, and his agony over his orientation and its conflict with his "loving" christian upbringing was palpable. No doubt he deserved the agony though, since I'm sure that Jesus would have mocked him, then incited a crowd to stone him to death...
oh wait, no he wouldnt have.

And if there's one thing that drives me crazy, it's listening to conservatives tell me that money is more important than treating people equally. Dont want to pay for the increase in court costs for gay marriage? Fine, change the legal fees for all divorces, but dont single out the gays because they might raise the number of divorces (Scott's got the right idea, maybe - everybody gets one freebie, after that the costs go up). It's called descrimination, and it's supposed to be illegal in the U.S.

And really, if you want to ban things because of cost to the taxpayer, I can think of a lot of other things that cost more and are far more harmful to the public.

Jamie Dawn said...

Great debate going on here!

Scott said that Marriage is a Human Right.
I differ with that statement.
Marriage is not a right.

If everyone has the right to be married, then those who cannot find a spouse on their own should be appointed one by the government, since it is their right to be married.

Marriage is a privilege which is regulated in our nation by the states. Each state makes laws regarding it.
The people of each state should vote on the matter of gay marriage, and their votes should stand. Judges should not legislate from the bench and overturn what the people have voted for.
If the majority of a state votes in favor of gay marriage, then so be it. If that's the case, then polygamy may be on the ballot next.
Let the people's vote stand.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Daveawayfromhome, actually, there are scads of evidence that indicate that it IS a choice. The belief that it ISN'T a choice is a fantasy promoted by gays and by people who don't like personal accountability, and are often afraid that it might be demanded of THEM in turn.

As for how money should never be a factor in our decisions: Please tell me you're voting Republican this year. THEY are showing more fiscal irresponsibility than the DEMOCRATS are. If spending money means nothing to you, then we have no argument.

Jungle Mom, excellent point! I'll take that a step further and say that I think it's ridiculous that ANYone gets married via fiat of the government. It never was that way in the past! They should have nothing to say about the matter for ANYone. (This last comment of mine will confuse the heck outta daveawayfromhome. If you want me to expound on it, let me know)

Uncle Joe, ;o) Teach me to go on a day trip...

Scott, well, you're Canadian, so monetary arguments WOULD be irrelevant. But since we're getting taxed to death as it IS, I assure you that Americans take it a little more seriously. AND we don't have socialized healthcare in exchange for it!

As for marriage being a 'human right', it hasn't always been and it still isn't. There was a time when they did blood tests to determine if you carried a certain type of disease and if you did, they wouldn't approve your marriage. And we CAN'T marry just anyone we wish to. Can...

1. A man marry an animal?
2. A man marry his sister? His mother? His father? His first cousin? His aunt? His grandmother?
3. A man marry multiple wives?
4. A woman marry multiple husbands?
5. A man marry an 8 year old child? (Why not? Muhammed did!)
6. A man marry his company? (after all, companies are legal entities and have their own social security number) Talk about being married to your work!

The answer is: The reason people can't marry in those instances is that society (as a whole) disapproves. Just because a small segment now approves of the homosexual lifestyle doesn't mean that they should now be granted those rights. When the majority approves, then it's a different topic for society as a whole.

Doozie, Dittos to everything!

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lee Ann, thanks, hon! You too!

Jamie Dawn, I just shot you an email. And thanks for your contribution! I agree.

Kathleen said...

Hi, Saur. Wow, nothing shy about you.

I believe that sexual preference is not a choice. I have had this discussion over many years with many people. I have asked probably a hundred people who said they are heterosexual when THEY made the choice to be hetero. Not one ever claimed to have made the choice. I agree with Scott that this is not a money issue it is a human rights issue. Unfortunately, the position of many religions has made this issue more difficult to solve than even slavery. Being a racist or a slave owner is identified as a sin in most religious teachings. But, to be sexual with the same sex has been declared a major sin by most religions world-wide. I personally don't have a problem with the money issue, because money could never be part of my decision making process with regard to human rights. Gee, think of the increase cost of elections when more that 50% of the population was given the right to vote.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Kathleen, long time no see! So you believe it's something that is endemic, huh? You're born a homosexual or you aren't? Name the studies that uphold this position.

As for costs, I think that costs SHOULD be a consideration UNLESS it is a clear question of civil rights. And frankly, I don't think that it is.

AQ said...

I'm not so much interested in the costs either - well, maybe I am - but in a different way.

First, I'm not sure whether sexual preference is a choice or not. But to me, it matters not for the sake of this discussion. If society decides that homosexuality should be accepted as normal, then it will become a choice. Since our children are being raised so politically correct to accept all types of lifestyles as normal, this is already happening. They are also being sexually stimulated at younger and younger ages, which leads to an unbelievable amount of exploration and experimentation at those younger ages. Often, they aren't even old enough to have a conscious sexual identity, and yet they are experimenting with others both homosexually and heterosexually. And I don't necessarily mean physically. It begins with the seemingly "innocent" flirting as early as elementary school.

I guess the point is: as the adult society continues the movement to accept homosexuality as normal, the younger generations will view it as a choice - and then it will become one.

As far as marriage is concerned - I think the purpose of marriage has become skewed. I think that the new "purpose" is seemingly defined as the binding together of two people who have the feeling toward each other called "love." I believe that historically, marriage is supposed to signify a commitment to another person for the purpose of raising a stable family - working as a team to raise (physically and mentally) healthy children. Because it takes the sperm from the man, and the egg from the woman to create those children, I would imagine that's why marriage would be between a man and a woman. Only.

That's leaving religion out of it for all you anti-religious people.

Now if we, as a society, want to change the purpose of marriage, let's discuss THAT. Then, I would like to consider a new type of legal "contract" or recognized status for those of us who are trying to raise families within the context of a committed male-female "partnership."

krok10 said...

Saur,

I don't have a problem with hot lesbians like Kathleen but I do not like butch lesbians.

I had a friend growing up whose name name was Gaylord and we called him Gay. He had to start going by Gaylord again because he didn't want people to think he practiced faggotry.

Excellent post.

undergroundlogician said...

WARNING: This comment will incite at least 237 more comments, and cause some of the more religiously sensitive to run to the vomitorium! Oh, well...I need to to do this for my sanity! An insane undergroundlogician would be a tragedy! >:P

The root of the WHOLE debate over gay and straight marriage can be linked to a tiny insignificant idea, which I will reveal at the end of this comment, an idea that is the very first domino in a string of thousands. It's involved in the question: what is the purpose of marrital sex in the first place? If marriage is the place for legal and moral sex, and sex is simply a matter of achieving orgasms (always for guys), then it follows that marriage is the place for legitimately moral orgasms, right? How dare single people who shack up with others reach Nirvana without a marriage contract! Shame on them! "Thou shalt not achieve orgasm without registering with the state." Hmmmph!

This make no sense. A person's sexual equipment works quite fine with or without a legal contract...sometimes it's thought to work better without! I disagree, but "Sex In the City" without commitment seems to be very persuasive of late (Stay with me, I AM going someplace with this.)

This view of sex in marriage works perfectly with the homosexual agenda...they want to justify their orgasms! What better way to legitamize same-gender cunnilingus, falacio, and anal intercourse than to allow these acts the same legal status as hetero acts of cunnilingus, felacio and vaginal intercourse? What better way to feel better about their chosen inordinate sexual orientation than to elevate it to the status of marriage, the place for state-sponsored legal orgasms. (Angel singing and hallelujah chorus begins now...)

No more condemnation from parents! No more state sanctioned persecution! No more wearing stupid rainbow shirts/jackets/evening dress combinations to make a social statement! No more jokes from Jay Leno! AND...they get the same perks as those arrogant heteroes do!

It is also my opinion that homos are jealous of heteroes. Only an opinion, but please stay with me. My parody is about over.

If sex is nothing more than an orgasm, and NOT for procreation unless one goes out of their way to go off the pill, or throw away Mr. Wiggly's balloon, then, homos who enjoy orgasms without the threat of pregnancy AT ALL also deserve the same breaks as contracepting heteroes. At this point it's not fair unless you live in the Promised Lands of California and Massachusetts. If legal orgasms give heteroes a tax break, homo-erotica orgasms deserve tax breaks too, damn it! IF HETEROES GET TAX BREAKS FOR POTENTIALLY PREGNANCY FREE SEX, HOMO-EROTICA IS A CERTAINLY PREGNANCY-FREE AND SURE THING IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO AVOID KIDS! And they probably deserve more of a tax break. Better yet, they should get free health care for the rest of their lives. Why?

Look at all the suffering, the social guilt, being called "queer" and having to endure hours of anxiety planning a secret gay liason...all that for what? A measly 15 second orgasm? PAH!!

And, then there's the threat of AIDS!!! which was probably invented by some group of white heterosexual Catholics, sponsored by the Vatican and introduced into the Gay Community by Opus Dei secret agents looking to wipe out the GLTC and protect the Church's non-profit status! GRRRRRR!!! Can you say "REPARATION?"

AND THEN! (I'm not finished!) to make matters worse, these stupid...no good...ungrateful hetero schlups wanna keep the tax breaks only for themselves? WHY? CUZ THEIR ORGASMS ARE BETTER? MORE MORAL? LEGAL? Just what do they put up with to get their orgasms? NOTHING!!! They stagger into bed each night, and with very little brain function, without any thought, and no risk of disease...ask the other, "Soooooooo, doooo ya wanna?" and then they just...they just DO IT!!! ARG!!! Not fair...NOT FAIR!!! STATE SANCTIONED ORGASMS FOR HETEROES ARE DEFINITELY NOT FAIR!!! DAMNED HETERO POLITICIANS...

And really, Saur, does it matter if the divorce rate for homos are higher? If a same-gender sexual partner gets a better orgasm with another gay lover, THERE IS NO RECOMPENSE FOR THE INJURED PARTY! So, if Mr. & Mr. Jones divorce each other cuz Mr. Jones is a slut, then Mr. Jones has the legal ability to sue for spousal support and MAINTAINANCE. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but if you ask me, (whispering) I think there are some GAY LAWYERS (shhh!)...who are looking to make a LOT of money here. Just a thought...

So, who would have thought the pill and the prophylactic would have created such a cultural nightmare? Uh, the Catholic Church, Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.

There. Let the discussion begin!

Mr. Fabulous said...

Sigh...

daveawayfromhome said...

"As for how money should never be a factor in our decisions: Please tell me you're voting Republican this year. THEY are showing more fiscal irresponsibility than the DEMOCRATS are."

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is not how much money they spend, but who they spend it on.
Much as I would like to make money no object, it has to be. But I dont think money needs to be saved on legal system expenses when there are so many other places that it could be saved first, without denying people basic rights (and no, I'm not talking about marriage, but right of access to the legal system). How about we start with all the no-bid cost-plus contracts handed out by the government? Wasnt the point of privatization that private enterprise would naturally and automatically cut costs? Explain to me how a contract that isnt competed for and guarantees, as profit, a percentage of whatever amount is spent is supposed to cut costs.
Personally, I think that things like courts, roads, libraries, education, police and fire protection are essential to the well-being of the country. Do they come cheaply? No. Can they be done better by private enterprise? No. Which is why these things are the job of the government and why we pay for them, however unwillingly, with tax money. As awful as the medicine is, it's better than the sickness. Where tax money should not be spent is on anything that would otherwise be profitable without an influx of tax money, such as oil, manufacturing, big agri-business, and banking (banks always make money, unless they've been very, very stupid; and why would we bail out a stupid bank, unless we want the stupidity to continue?).

Anyway, that's all a bit off topic.

@ AQ: "If society decides that homosexuality should be accepted as normal, then it will become a choice."

Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I suspect that homosexuality is not like an on/off switch, but more like a rheostat. Some folks are all the way on, most are all the way off, and some are in the middle: those folks can choose (but if society deems homosexuality to be okay, then what does it matter which choice is made?).
Yes, kids experiment with various forms of sexuality (you may have done this yourself), but they get over it, most of them, and go on to be good little heterosexuals. The ones who may not return to the default hetero position because of the "acceptance" of the homosexual lifestyle will not be new converts (which is the conservative boogayman), but simply people who could have gone either way and took advantage of the available option; as is their right in America, since it harms no one but (arguably) themselves.
Isnt it funny how conservatives are vehemently laissez-faire on economics, which really do affect everyone, but want everyone marching in jack-booted lines when it comes to truly personal choices like who consenting adults choose to sleep with or build their lives with?

"I would like to consider a new type of legal 'contract' or recognized status for those of us who are trying to raise families within the context of a committed male-female 'partnership.'"

Now you're just being silly. Do you propose to cut out all those who've adopted children as well as gay couples from this "special" status (which presumably comes with some sort of special tax break)? All those poor orphans! Reducing kids who've lost their parents and live with their aunts or uncles or godparents or whatever to some sort of second-class family status? Very sad.

Here's an alternative idea: Marriage, in a way, is kind of legal contract, simply stated and understood by pretty much everyone. In it, two people agree to be responsible for each other and whatever dependents may enter into their partnership. Details may vary, but that's the jist of it, generally done without a lawyer in sight.
But there is no reason why, with expensive legal help, two people, regardless of gender or even affection, could not enter into a contractual state virtually indistinguishable from marriage, except that it wont be called "marriage".
So maybe what's needed here is two things:
1. A simple and low-cost contract that two people (or more, what the hell) can enter into that carries legal obligations of responsibilities towards all those considered to be in the "family" of the signees.
2. Having gotten this contractual option, gays then have to give up the term "marriage", since conservatives seem to be wedded to to the word themselves. Big deal, it's just sophistry.

There, does that solve the problem?
No, because the root problem is not definitions of marriage, or family, or anything else. The problem is the existence of homosexuals and the increasing tendency of the western world to accept them rather than insisting that their (forgive the analogy) square peg be shoved into a religiously-mandated round hole. For some reason, this really chaps the asses of certain people, though I cannot understand why it should matter to them. Aside from sheer busybodyness, that is.

Finally, @ UL: That made no sense whatsoever. Really.

undergroundlogician said...

Aw, Dave!

It doesn't make sense to you because you are an intentional skeptic! A skeptic feels he/she can waltz around, pick and choose this principle or that principle based on...well, whatever!

If an orgasm is good between heteroes who say "I do" and do "as often as they can" with tax breaks, who are they to say that homo orgasms are bad? This is of course, giving the prevailing view of sex.

The GLTC is being very logical here, if you accept their definitions of sex and marriage. And they're not really altering the view that much. They've taken the predominant secular view of human sexuality and marriage and are running with it. If we don't rethink human sexuality and marriage within a proper religious and moral context, then WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO STOP THIS.

I've taken the time here to show its absurdity. So come on, Dave, read it again. But this time, choose a different line of thought. You can do this; it won't hurt. Besides, if you begin to feel uncomfortable, you can turn it off. Remember...you're a skeptic!

Kathleen said...

I think that a problem here is the word marriage, as Dave mentioned. Let's remove the word marriage and replace it with 'union'. Now, remove YOUR particular religious beliefs (if you have any) from the event and look at it as the business arrangement Dave described. The question in my mind that remains is should this 'union' that is a contract (commitment) between adults be denied the same protections and benefits under the laws of our land? One thing I love about this country is the absolute fairness that resides in our constitution. AS WRITTEN, it brilliantly demands that ones race, gender, religion or social status can not be used against you to deny you of equal rights and the protection under the law. PLEASE, let's not get bogged down in the quagmire of discussions as to how it is unfairly applied here, there and everywhere. Let's elevate this discussion to the level that is serious about what is fair and just for all people.

I pose these questions to all...

Do homosexual 'unions' deserve the same legal protection and benefits provided to heterosexual 'unions'?

If not, why? (objections other than money)

If science found a genetic link to homosexuality, would you change your position?

How would the discovery of such a gene square with your religion?


Saur, I don't have studies to present here at this time because I am too damn busy, but I agree that it is important information that I and all need to seek out. Soon I hope.

Finally, to Krok...you wish! ;>)

Uncle Joe said...

Such a sad soul-less world.

undergroundlogician said...

Kathleen:

You have bought into the thinking of my reductio. If sex is mainly recreational, and NOT procreational, Homo sex fits very well in that definition. In fact, homo sex is ENTIRELY recreational! Why keep these people away from tax incentives? Who do we heteroes think we are allowing for such a travesty in fairness? It's time we quit being so judgmental.

If you all hold the "recreational sex" view, then stop your quibbling. The doors are already open for gays; let them have their legal and morally sanctioned sex too, just like you. Let's just get rid of the antiquated view of marriage and let any or all enjoy their orgasms with tax incentives. This is our right!

And if you hold to this, I'm warning you! Do NOT be surprised when you see those who want legal sanction for beastial "unions" as well. People who "fall in love" with horses, goats or dogs will protest this rampant unfairness. You better have something better than the recreational sex view to counter them. They'll tear your views of human sexual intercourse as prejudicial and beastial-phobic. Better get ready for this.

daveawayfromhome said...

Kathleen, dont respond to UL's beastiality gambit. It's stupid, and he knows it.

This link is my response to that "slippery slope" arguement. After all, just because we get driver's licenses, doesnt mean we engage in the Death Race 2000 (except for that Hogan kid).

undergroundlogician said...

No Dave.

This "beastiality" conclusion is not stupid. Only people can be stupid. The entire conclusion from the "reductio ad absurdum" is ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY ABSURD. That's why it's effective and I write it in order to shock people into thinking again.

Your not liking my conclusion may be the result of your intentional skepticism, but it has no bearing on the argument. This is like any "reductio"; take a statement made by Fyodor Dostoyevski: "If there is no God, than everything is permissable."

If you all don't want a total collapse of Western civilization, then you need to rethink some things. I won't take long...two, maybe three generations and we'll have nihilism. I'm sure that'll get some applause!

undergroundlogician said...

I meant "It won't take long..." I'm too much in a hurry.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Wow! Take it away guys!

I would add something to all this though. I think that Underground Logician DOES have a good point: Until we agree what a marriage IS, we can hardly say what it ISN'T.

I am not willing to go with the Catholic definition of marital sex, though. That (reductio ad adsurdum) comes down to: You can ONLY have sex IF you are married AND trying to get pregnant.

This leads to all other kinds of theological nightmares which include (but are not limited to):

1. What do you do when your wife is 50 but not menopausal yet? Do you forswear sex or take the risk of having children with all types of birth defects?

2. And can you really afford 12 kids or more?

3. What if she's already pregnant and could not possibly conceive again? Do you stop having sex the moment she's pregnant?

4. Is it a sin if you both enjoy it, since procreation should be the focus?

5. If you're deemed infertile, should you move to separate bedrooms?

6. If your spouse is infertile, but YOU aren't, are THEY sinning but YOU aren't when you're having sex?

etc., ad nauseum.

In the Bible, it's made pretty clear that we are sexual beings and that God made sex for pleasure for married people.

Certainly Jewish people never interpreted the scriptures to mean that they were ONLY to have sex with their spouses with the object of getting pregnant. And, most scholars agree that Judaic interpretations of the Old Testament would be something to take seriously. The idea that sex is ONLY for procreation is a later one, developed within the sect of the Catholic church.

Why do we have to complicate it? Isn't it enough for Christians to simply say that God said sex is for a man and wife ONLY. It's pretty clear.

But from a SECULAR viewpoint:

What we DO need to decide upon is the definition of marriage. Is it merely a committed relationship? And if so:

1. What is the difference between newlyweds and a couple that has merely lived together for 20 years (forsaking all others)?

2. Is marriage between any two humans, or are there restrictions? If so, what would they be?

3. Where do we draw the line? Because there will people that will always be challenging that line.

... I GUARANTEE you that the next lawsuits will be polygamous ones. Are we willing to stretch the definition of marriage that far?

And if the polygamous ones win, what next? ...Men and young boys? ...Men and goats? (Incidentally, I DO take this to be a serious possibility. After all, at one time NO one in the USA would believe that gay marriage would be a possibility! Standards change!)

Will the word 'housewife' take on a new meaning?

Or: Will we completely throw away marriage altogether BECAUSE we cannot seem to reach a common definition?

Jamie Dawn said...

I love when UJ pops in with his lighthearted quips.
He adds a touch of reprieve amidst the onslaught of debate.
:-)
You handle these debates masterfully, Saur.

daveawayfromhome said...

UL: reductio ad absurdum may be fine for making people think about things, it's not so good for using as a predictor. Marriage between humans and goats? Good grief. The pendulum swings, folks, but bestial marriages would require the damn thing to fall off and fly out the window. Dismiss me with your "skeptic" talk if you must, but it wont make Mr. and Mrs. Goatfucker any more of a reality. Or a threat.

As for polygamy, yes, there probably will be court cases. Quite soon, in fact. It may even become legal throughout the U.S. before gay marriage does. Certainly no one is proposing constitutional amendments against it.
Again, who cares. Taking on one wife could be considered crazy. I say polygamists get everything they deserve. Interesting though, that it's always one man and several women, never the other way around (expect an amendment on that one).
Another way of looking at polygamy is that it's sexual capitalism. After all, conservatives, at least, will tell you that if you can make lots of money, you deserve to keep it; polygamy is just that principle, but using women instead of money.

Kathleen said...

UL, does your religion require married couples to have sex? And, if they don't have sex is the marriage null and void? Would that then mean that they as a couple are no longer entitled to the protections and privileges such as shared assets, tax benefits, employer benefits, death benefits, child custody...?

Based on your assumption that sex is the primary purpose of marriage is IMHO a somewhat narrow view. In fact, if you took the average time married couples spent having sex, one would perhaps question if the the resources expended (a lifetime together)produced a fair return. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of your prowess.;>)

I have never viewed marriage as a purely sexual and procreation event. Rather, romantic that I am, it is the commitment made to a partner that enhances, smoothes, and stabilizes ones journey through life...old, young, sick, well, up and down and maybe some sex and kids along the way. To me,a marriage (at its best)is a nurturing place of safety, acceptance and love. All the sex in the world cannot make a good and loving marriage.

UL, I get where you are going, but I can't buy it. In fact, I am very uncomfortable with your premise that homosexuals are deviants and to allow them the simple rights I have described above would plunge mankind into the depths of depravity.

Just sayin'

P.S. could you answer my questions?

undergroundlogician said...

Some points to clarify.

One: my point is not to summarize marriage as sex. My point is that when we reduce sex to achieving orgasms, we change marriage as a contract to allow these orgasms. When we eliminate, or downgrade having children as incidental or accidental, or just an option we choose not to make, we really distort and twist marriage that has the criteria that homosexuals can buy into.

Marriage is not JUST for the purpose of closeness, love, companionship, though these things must be there. It is primarily for the creation of families. THIS is why the laws were originally set up the way they are, to protect the one thing that makes healthy productive human beings as citizens; families.

We think this is outdated not because the homosexual lobby has driven this idea out of our heads, but contracepting has changed our views of marriage. The GLBTC has taken advantage of this change to promote their political agenda. They have been successful to nullify the sodomy laws that were once on the books. We have allowed the "right to privacy" to go as far as this.

So the whole discussion of gay marriage yes or no is moot. As long as sex is reduced to achieving orgasms and marriage as a place for legal sex, the homosexuals' argument is valid. The definition of sex and marriage in the arguement is completely untrue, but when treated as true, the argument works.

We can talk about romantic love, caring for needs, etc. as being the basis of marriage, and it is extremely important to have love in marriage. But, one can also can have love, caring, and meaningful relationships without marriage AND WITHOUT SEX!

SEX is the variable that is different between marriage and any other relationship. SEX allows the married couple to have children. This does NOT mean that the other aspects of love aren't necessary--in a marriage they're even more necessary for the marriage is the cradle for the family.

As long as we reduce or eliminate the priority of having children in marriage, homosexuals will make the same case as contracepting heteroes do. They'll show how they can have just as meaningful relationships, caring and even show love in sexual activity as well. They see a moral equivalence to hetero marriage because, in a sense, there is one; they don't have the legal perks.
As to your questions:

1. UL, does your religion require married couples to have sex? I give you the short version...yes, but there are some exceptions. Matrimony is a sacrament with a purpose to create families. If a Catholic couple enters into matrimony with no intention of having children but having sex, they are violating the criteria for the sacrament. All couples must be open to having children and the purpose of sex then is to open to having children. However, CHARITY MUST RULE. There may be times when sexual activity may be damaging, harmful or ill advised due to the health of either spouse, financial or physical conditions that make having children difficult if not harmful, etc.

2. And, if they don't have sex is the marriage null and void? Refusal to have sex can be a huge problem, given that matrimony puts conditions on both spouses to give of themselves as much as possible to the other. It is imitating the life of God as He gives of himself completely to us. There is to be no holding back. But, in the case described in #1, there are exceptions, but the decision to not have relations are mutually determined. There is no rape allowed and there is no punishment by withdrawing allowed either. If the extreme occurs where one of the spouses refuse to consummate the marriage, it is safe to say that particular spouse has not entered into the sacrament and the marriage is annulled. From what I know, there can be rare occasions that a marriage takes place between a couple who individually made a vow of celibacy. Then the vow is maintained in the marriage. This is rare, but it has been known to happen. Again, this is something that is mutually agreed upon, and in this particular case, agreed upon prior to the nuptials.

3. Would that then mean that they as a couple are no longer entitled to the protections and privileges such as shared assets, tax benefits, employer benefits, death benefits, child custody...? The status of marriage in the Catholic Church coincides with the status married couples have in the state. If a marriage is annulled, then the status of marriage in the state follows with a decree of legal divorce. Therefore, the legal status ceases on account of the divorce.

You must keep in mind, what the state does with marriage may or may not reflect the actual state of matrimony of a married couple. For instance, if a Catholic couple decides to elope and get married by a justice of the peace, they may be legally married, but NOT in the eyes of the Church. Catholics have valid marriages when they are married in the Church, or sanctioned by the Bishop if the marriage occurs in a church of another denomination.

This is a bit complex, but this is what I know.

The Lazy Iguana said...

This really is not a "sensitive" issue for me. Gays being allowed to marry will have zero impact on me.

What I do not understand is why so many people do care. I mean unless you are gay what really changes for you? Nothing. Your life continues on as it did before. The sun continues to rise in the easy and set in the west.

Oh but it cheapens the institution of marriage!

So you define the value of your marriage on the actions of others? What does that say about you and your values?

Does divorce also cheapen the institution of marriage?

Oh but people get married to have kids! So people incapable of producing kids should wear a big letter S on their clothes so everyone knows they are sterile? And they should be banned from the "privilege" of marriage?

Or would they have to sign a legal contract promising to adopt a kid? Should they be forced to adopt a kid first?

So what exactly is the big deal?

If what others want to do has no impact on me, then I do not care.

Also I see this as a legal matter. Getting married is a legal procedure. Gays are allowed all other use of the court system, but they can not get a license from the State to be legally bound to another person?

I just do not get why people get so riled up over this issue. I am FAR more concerned about putting the Florida fires out so I do not have to smell the smoke when I go outside than I am about what happens if fags can get married.

The fine dust like ash that is getting the boat dirty is a bigger concern of mine than this issue.

So what. Who cares. It does not effect me, so whatever.

Let the gays get married. Then they can fight over who gets what just like everyone else. They can pay divorce lawyers just like everyone else. Hell they can even pay Poodle Support if the judge says so.

Just like everyone else.

daveawayfromhome said...

@ UL: So the whole discussion of gay marriage yes or no is moot. As long as sex is reduced to achieving orgasms and marriage as a place for legal sex, the homosexuals' argument is valid. The definition of sex and marriage in the arguement is completely untrue, but when treated as true, the argument works.

I'm unaware of anywhere where either of these statements are considered mainstream, secondary stream or even tertiary stream. Who exactly are you imagining to be using such arguements? As far as I can tell, the arguement of the gay rights people is "we just want what straight folks have got". That doesnt seem too unreasonable.
Sex and orgasms can and do happen anywhere, regardless of legal or illegal status. There are also plenty of assholes on all sides of the sexuality equation for whom sex is nothing more than orgasms (I'd suggest to everyone to avoid those types). As for getting married so one can "legally" have sex, I'm unaware of anyone in America who feels that way, outside of those who've chosen to live under repressive religious strictures. Last I checked, you hit 18 years old, and you're free and clear, at least legally speaking.

No, in America people get married because they love each other and want to "spend the rest of their lives with each other". Maybe it's stupid, but one needs only turn on the TV for a single day to see that idea reinforced over and over and over again. Given this, why shouldnt gays want to have the same opportunity as straights to have that kind of union?
Whether or not the marriage lasts is irrelevant to the ideal. Everybody want someplace to belong, nobody wants to be lonely. Perhaps "traditionally", marriage has been a place where one man and one woman raise children. It doesnt matter anymore, because 80 some-odd years of closely watched and believed-in movies and television has thrown that old idea out the window.

The Lazy Iguana said...

A lot of the same things were said about interracial marriage. Why, because people could marry out of their race morality was going to hell. People thought their grandkids would not be white. I guess they figured their kids were going to marry blacks or asians. And chickens.

It did not happen. The vast majority of white grandparents ended up with white grandkids.

Same thing, different year.

This is ONLY an issue around election time, when Republicans want to rile up the "base" of the party to vote for them. Even if this "base" is not the majority.

Next up - Obama and the Democrats want to make abortion mandatory to stem the population growth so we use less energy!

Kathleen said...

Lazy, lol. The funny thing is that the issue of denying gay 'unions' is not political in my mind it is religious. I am four square for the right to freedom of religion...all religions as long as they do not violate the laws of our land. Yes, some religions do violate the laws of our land...polygamy, sacrifices, rape, incest, imprisonment and abuse. Polygamy is one law I am not so sure about, but I can easily accept the restriction of the rest as they are abuse. I am equally staunch about the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE. And, just so you know, I am a Republican. I am convinced that this is the tail wagging the dog. Religious doctrine and tradition is meddling with The Constitution IMHO. Why this has not been resolved in favor of gay unions in the courts up until now causes me concern. I realize that social 'mores' have always influenced the system of law, but it has never helped the cause of justice that I can recall. For instance the injustice commonly practiced by the legal system against women, minorities, children and the fringe thinkers. Since when was it fair and just to deny more than fifty percent of Americans the right to vote...own land...receive equal pay for equal work. Women and minorities were excluded based on the 'mores' of the time. These mores were founded in religious traditions. Traditions that shackled people and required them to be second class citizens and generally beholden to a "master plan" that excluded them and devalued their existence. I am fully cognizant of the fact that our laws were written based in Judeo Christian ethics, but it is clear to me that the writers carefully understood that true freedom cannot be a slave to a single religious group or theology. Guaranteeing freedom through laws is like carefully preparing land to bring forth life and allowing abundant and diverse life to flourish. It is not about planting just corn and peas. To imply that to give gays equal protection and benefit of the law will lead to bestiality (abuse) as common place goes beyond reason in my mind. Gay sex between consenting adults is not abuse.

undergroundlogician said...

Daveaway:

Let me see if I can be more clear. Understanding the classic meaning and purpose for sex is not common. Some may think it's silly to even have a conversation like this. But unless we do, we're in a heap of trouble. Natural consequences like negative population growth and the collapse of societies may sound apocalyptic and farfetched, but countries are already suffering the effects of negative population growth re: birthrates (Russia, Germany, Italy and France). I'm not just trying to thump my Bible here.

Some people treat having sex like going out and playing softball. Others treat sex as a means of loving. When I speak of sex from a position of natural law, I am looking at the essence of the act that has been trivialized by many.

Sex is a tremendous gift for the purpose of bringing new human beings into the world. The value of human beings are priceless; there is no price-tag that can be put on a Dave, Saur, Kathleen, Iguana, etc. The act that brings these people into the world needs to be treated with as much respect as the people generated by such an act.

In our culture, sex is deeply profaned. It is trivialized...it is treated like any act of love.

People who date have sex, those who meet for the first time have sex, strangers do it, teenagers do it by "cuddling", men with men, women with women, people who do it with themselves. Ultimately, sex is not special, set apart, you may call it holy. And there's no holy place for it. It has lost its value...EVERYONE DOES IT. And now gays who have been doing it, thing they're entitled to the status of married couples.

undergroundlogician said...

Kathleen:

I never said that allowing gay marriage will lead to beastiality. Gay marriage isn't the cause for beastiality. Treating sex as a toy will lead to beastiality. Treating people, even ourselves as less than human leads to bestiality. Even though my mentioning beastiality is part of the reductio, I don't take it lightly. The mindset for sex in beastiality is the same for any kind of sexual misconduct: sex is for pleasure, and in the case of beastialiy, if humans won't do it, animals will do just fine. It's already occuring in our society, and the practice is increasing.

The diminished meaning and value of sex in our culture is what's causing the social breakdown we are experiencing. With this mindset, there is no stopping any type of perverted sexual expression. None. And it diminishes the value of marriage, and we're seeing marriage going down the tubes as well.

And then, shock of all shocks, someone gets pregnant, then abortion comes into the discussion. All because humans are treated like sex things and sex is only for pleasure.

daveawayfromhome said...

"In our culture, sex is deeply profaned. It is trivialized...it is treated like any act of love."

Absolutely. But it is not the fault of the gays. If you want to fault anyone, fault the media, which treats casual sex as a given. Fault the advertising community, which uses sex to sell everything. Fault parents who treat (and especially, dress) their pre-adolescent children as if they were adults.
Again, again and again, homosexuals are not the problem. If they disappeared tomorrow, not one problem in America would go away (except for the one about how to treat homosexuals).

"The mindset for sex in beastiality is the same for any kind of sexual misconduct: sex is for pleasure, and in the case of beastialiy, if humans won't do it, animals will do just fine. It's already occuring in our society, and the practice is increasing. "

You're not seriously suggesting that having sex with animals is a modern problem, are you? Give it a fancy latin name if you want to, but a dumb arguement is still a dumb arguement.

The Lazy Iguana said...

Underground - so that means that when married people stop having sex, they should not be entitled to any special status that married people who do have sex have?

And people should only have sex if they want to produce kids? So people should only have sex three or four times? And people who can not produce kids should just never have sex at all - married or not?

In this case, after the last kid is born parents should just get divorced, then get "fixed", then just live together as a couple not legally married?

By the way, how would you know if bestiality is on the increase in America?

Blaming immorality on fags is like blaming lead miners for shooting deaths. Totally unrelated.

undergroundlogician said...

Dave:

Did you even read what I wrote?

I NEVER faulted the gays!
In fact, I blame contracepting heteroes WHO WANT ORGASMS WITHOUT BABIES! It is heteroes who have trivialized it.

And now since everyone trivializes it, the gays are just being logical; they want parity in the law codes. If sex is fun thing to do, and everyone is doing it, and marriage is a sanctioned place by the state to do it where there's all sorts of perks, then why not have gay marriage so that gays get the same perks? It is a valid argument with a conclusion that follows from a false premise.

As to your observation about bestiality being a modern problem, I have a one word response...HUH?

If all sex is merely orgasms, and orgams are good, then all sex is good. It doesn't matter if it's pre or post marriage, with same sex, with leather, chains or chainsaws, with self or with animals.

This is a problem in modern times but not because of modernity. Anyone in any era can trivialize sex. It happens to be a big and growing problem, and I don't think people are sharp enough or perhaps willing to tackle the cause of it all. Let's let government put some laws on the books; that'll stave off the threat.

undergroundlogician said...

Lazy:

Take some time and read my comments. I'm not going to repeat myself over some of your questions. As to married couples not having sex and not getting perks...I'm sorry, man, I'm not tracking with you.

A reductio takes an argument that is illogical and takes it to an absurd conclusion so that people can see with their own eyes how illogical it is.

I think you may be wondering what I think is a solution, which is a good question.

1. People need to stop seeing sex as MERELY recreational. It is very pleasant, but pleasant for a reason...So that sex keeps happening...for a reason!

2. The reason? First procreation, and this act is to be entirely loving, since it is a symbol of total giving of self to the one you love. This "marriage act" is supposed to be the quintessential act of love. So when guys who date gals want to get their rocks off with them, well one can say with certainy this act is NOT love for the women.

3. It is in the context of marriage that the procreative act occurs because MARRIAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF TOTAL SELF-GIVING. In fact, in Christianity, marriage represents the total self-giving of Christ to His Church, and the Church's total gift of self to Christ. Marriage then becomes the cradle of the family. Out of a loving act of sexual intercourse comes a sublime and priceless possibility of a human being...a baby, with an immortal soul, an immortal destiny to be with the Creator of the universe.

Such acts that produce such a priceless gifts are to be sanctioned and protected. This is why traditionally marriages and family have had the tax status and protections in society. Gay marriage has NO CAPACITY to create families. Any kids that are adopted by homos HAVE TO COME VIA HETEROES.

As to world views (this is for Dave), It is secularism and materialism, two main modern philosophies that have DESTROYED mankinds ability to see the value of what it means to be human. Here's why:

1. If there is no God (secularism), then humankind is an accident on a chain of evolution. Some groups even see humankind as "viruses" that should be allowed to become extinct.

2. If humans are nothing but stuff (materialism) like animals or things, then humans will treat each other like animals or things. Sex for orgasm uses other human beings as pleasure toys, even if the decision to do it is mutual. It is sex with no love, just pleasure.

People need to remember things, important things are so easily forgotten. The root meaning of "knowledge"...to not forget. Get educated. Did you know that the Supreme Court case, Lawrence vs. Texas, where the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional, were based on the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade, which made abortions legal? Did you know the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade was based on a decision by the SCOTUS in 1963 in Griswold vs. Connecticut, where the "right to privacy" was first "discovered"? And do you know what the issue was in Griswold? The right for married woman to use contraception she picked up at Planned Parenthood to use, against her husband's wishes.

Who woulda thunk that such a tiny little pill would create such a tsunami in our culture? The Catholic Church.

daveawayfromhome said...

"A reductio takes an argument that is illogical and takes it to an absurd conclusion so that people can see with their own eyes how illogical it is."

UL, as long as we've been arguing, you've loved to use the reductio, but I really think you'd be better served, in terms of getting your meaning across, by just stating what you mean. Too often with you there seem to be these arguements that go in circles because nobody gets what your point seems to be. Maybe I still dont. But I'll try, again.
You seem to be arguing that people need to return to the old Catholic standard of sex being allowed only as part of a marriage, blessed by the Church, ever mindful of the power of God, and for the purpose of obeying God's command to go forth and multiply. All other forms of sexual union are not only sinful, but destructive to the fabric of society. Obviously, this will exclude any form of gay sex.

Now, before I go any farther, am I getting this right?

undergroundlogician said...

Yup. You got it.

As to my being better served, that's not my intent, besides your suggestion is no fun. My intent is to help those who already disagree to see something from a different angle, and the absurdity is easy to remember.

But, as you have seen, and probably felt yourself, the reductio has the power to agitate those who are already resistant. Usually those who disagree who have been impacted by the reductio will then twist the argument to make the the reductio sound silly or irrelevant.

So Dave, I could have done as you have suggested, but then Saur wouldn't have over 50 comments. Makes for BIG numbers.

undergroundlogician said...

Addendum:

Dave, you use the term "old" in a negative manner. Let me suggest that "old" as in Catholic standard, is not irrelevant, outdated or out of touch. Old is mature, wise, immovable, time tested, and not gullible.

So when Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae predicted the type of society that contraception would bring, he was spot on. So for old, that's pretty good. I say, why keep doing stupid and getting what stupid gets? Let's do wise what wisdom gets and benefit others as well. Otherwise, we suffer consequences that may be irreversable.

Unless, as a skeptic, you want to go it your way, that's up to you. You or anyone else may comment from here. I'm pretty much done. I don't think I have any more to say on this subject.

The Lazy Iguana said...

1. If there IS a God, then did not this God create homos too?

Oh yea, thats right. Satan created the fags.

But if God is all powerful, more powerful than Satan, then why did he allow Satan to screw things up?

OH YEA! Eve allowed herself to be fooled by a talking snake.

But if God is all knowing, then he knew before hand that Eve was going to get fooled by the talking snake. This is why the forbidden tree was created (by that same God) in the first place!

But then - after knowing what was going to happen - God still punished both Adam and Eve for what he knew was going to happen.

Therefore, Eve had no freewill. She had to get fooled by the talking snake, because that was part of God's plan.

Therefore God must be bipolar or something? He punishes people for doing things he knows they are going to do - before they do it.

Or he allows Satan to roam free, corrupting us foolish humans with promises of golden violins or forbidden fruit or whatever - and then we are punished for being fooled.

And this makes sense?

So what if there is no God?

In this case, why do the right thing? I mean, I do not expect some sort of heavenly reward or anything. I die, and that is it.

So what is better? Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, or acting out of fear that if I mess up I go to some eternal lake of fire? What act is more sincere?

Old is not always wise. In the OLD days, women that could do math were witches. Cats were devils because their eyes would "glow" at night. The devil lived in the woods. Werewolves roamed the night when the moon was full. Hardly wise times.

PLENTY of Catholics are using that pill, against the wishes of the Church. PLENTY of Catholics are also using contraception. And how do I know?

My Catholic friends are not cranking out babies like rabbits. So they are either not doing it OR they are infertile. Or they are using birth control. Now which do you think is more likely?

daveawayfromhome said...

So, you equate gay marriage with unmarried cohabitation, with one-night stands, with beastiality and with civil unions? All are the same because they dont fit the criteria as stated above?
Wow.
I guess we are done, because I cannot possibly accept such an absolute proposition. Nor, I think, can most Americans, and thank God for that. If I wanted to live in a narrowly defined society, I'd move to the Middle East.

"Usually those who disagree who have been impacted by the reductio will then twist the argument to make the the reductio sound silly or irrelevant."

Actually, the reductio generally distracts from the arguement, as people chase the (easy) ridiculous arguements instead of concentrating on the (harder) greyer ones.

Lazy, lemme warn you right now, dont go there with UL. His belief in God is absolute, and he's seen your arguements before.
Simpler merely to say that whatever God's "plan" is (if there is one) it's incomprehensible to mere humans, and sure as hell wont fit into whatever tiny little meme that we can come up with. UL may even agree with me on this one, but he'll do it such a way that I'll be "wrong" anyway.

Ul is very sure of his arguements , so unless you're having fun, just let him go, because you're arguing with a wall.

undergroundlogician said...

Lazy:

So, if there is a God, he's supposed to control everything? Why THAT? Why do you limit your imagination to such a ogre of a deity? And don't think you got Christianity down, man. You don't. You are light years away. Or, you've hangin' around too many Calvinist-Fundamentalist Baptist types. Your version of God is a monster.

Daveaway:

Before you lambast me about my "absolutes," how about the absolutes of your skepticism? Remember, you chose to be a skeptic? You chose conclusions not on evidence, but on a prioris of your own choosing? You know, the a priori of God being completely unknowable and unjust if he judged us on the basis of knowing Him? Remember? YOU made the decision to choose the options for such a deity, and YOU left no room for other options? Just because you chose to? DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION WE HAD A WHILE BACK? I think you do.

As to my "equating" anything, let me be more accurate. The reason I used the reductio is to show the identical premises that exist in each scenario; there's no "equating." Each scenario is different, but with similar threads.

Plus, if you don't like the conclusions I come to? Well, argue back; don't whine cuz you like to argue the "gray" stuff. All that ends up to be a group of people who impress each other with how much they don't know, and what an absolutist ass the UL is. Tear apart my reductio; I'll take it like a man. Don't waste "gray" matter on "gray areas."

daveawayfromhome said...

tsk, tsk, techy, arent we?

"Remember? YOU made the decision to choose the options for such a deity, and YOU left no room for other options? Just because you chose to?"

Just as you did. There is no difference in what we do except for the position of the "absolute" rock upon which we stand. You yourself have said that it is impossible to avoid absolute statements, that even the phrase "there are no absolutes" is an absolute. Fair enough, I cant argue with that. What I can do is stop worrying about whether I'm making absolute statements or not, and get back to the arguement at hand.
As for not wanting to arguethe "grey" stuff, that's the only place where arguements are generally possible. People dont argue over their absolutes; they go to war, or they agree to disagree. The grey areas are where the discussion comes in, and it's where politics lives. This is why the Republican Party, with their refusal to compromise, has made the last few decades so miserable for everyone, including themselves.

As for why you use the reductio, I cannot argue, but I can say that I often dont get what you're up to, and I'm not sure that others do either. There's no point in using an arguement that those with whom you argue dont get. It doesnt really matter if I'm too dumb to understand what you're saying or you're to jargonistic, if the listener doesnt get the point you're trying to make, you're not communicating.

The Lazy Iguana said...

Well, the Old Testament paints a picture of a vengeful God. The killing of babies, people turning into salt, orders to create armies and wage war, and so on.

And then there is that Leviticus. Talk about disturbing reading. It reads like something written by the Taliban. Parts of it anyway.

But there is a common theme in the Old Testament. People stray from the wishes of God, and are then punished. Everyone is punished. When God sent the flood waters, how many innocent babies and children were killed? They were not on the arc! So therefore they drowned. but were the children wicked, or just the parents?

How many people did God allow Satan to kill because God and Satan were playing biblical "I bet he will" with Job?

The problem of freewill VS the will of God is not new. It has been kicked around for a long time. Christianity (and other religions - not just one) teach God is all knowing and all powerful. This makes God infallible. God does not make mistakes. Except for maybe the platypus. What is that thing anyway? A mammal that lays eggs? A bird that nurses its young and does not have feathers?

Anyhow if this is the case, then God's plan - which religion also teaches we can not understand - can not be broken. So if God foresees something it will happen. This means that all the events leading up to WWII had to happen. Nobody involved had any choice but to carry out the plan.That or God did not know WWII - a major event - was going to happen. He was just as surprised as Poland.

Therefore I have no freewill. Whatever I do is known in advance by God. It may seem like I have a choice, but I really don't.

The alternative view is that God is only all knowing sometimes. I think. I really can not remember it all. But the monkey wrench here is that if God is not all knowing all the time - what is he? Imperfect? Can God be imperfect?

I suppose so. Like I said the Old Testament does paint the picture of an angry vengeful jealous God. Anger and jealousy are negative emotions, not a trait that I would expect to find in a perfect deity.

Which is another argument in itself. The angry God and the loving God all in the same book. On one page scores of people are experiencing divine smite, on another page everyone lives under grace and everyone is forgiven for their sins. Yet hell is still full of souls.

Anyhow - that is the basics of the whole thing. A lot has been written about it by a lot of people. I did not make any of it up.

daveawayfromhome said...

Actually, Lazy, there's a third possibility which deals with the idea of quantum reality; i.e., every time you have a choice to make, the universe splits, or at least potentially splits. It's possible that God doesnt only know what you're going to do, but what you might also do/have done. But the onus of the choice is placed upon you.

Personally, I like the idea put forth by Richard Bach in his book "Illusions", where the main character asked the Messiah, "but you know what's going to happen, dont you?", to which the Messiah replied, "Yes, but I dont like to think about it".

undergroundlogician said...

Dave:

Can't take the heat, eh? "Skeptic world" isn't so lofty and safe as you'd like, is it? You want to choose nonsense and yet be thought a genius. Well, just as you chose to be a skeptic, you can choose not to be one. Your choice. The key is in the willing.

Lazy:

You said: Therefore I have no freewill. Whatever I do is known in advance by God. It may seem like I have a choice, but I really don't.

Again, I don't know where you are getting your interpretation of Scripture, but this way of thinking of God from scripture is common of hyper-Calvinist Christians. It is also common of Gnostics. In either case, it is a monstrous idea of God. I don't think you are making these things up, but I do think you are influenced. You also are not looking at the conditions that makes God angry. You're leaning to the side of the poor sinner who can't make up his mind on his own since God already did it for him. Again, this is a horrific notion of God that affects HOW you see the Bible.

Let me offer a fourth way as an alternative to the "gray" world of Dave. God is all powerful, all knowing , everywhere present, is all holy and just, and is all LOVING. Now you may not like His hatred of sin, but then, unless you understand God in his love, you'll think very poorly of Him. There's enormous amounts of scripture verses that speak of his love. Try those for a while and offset the imbalance you have in your thinking.

The kind of thinking I propose puts us in the position of having to allow mystery in our life. It allows us to think of ourselves as small in comparison and that we don't have to "figger God out" to believe in Him. It is beyond our comprehension that an all powerful God who knows our choices allows us total freedom in love.

nuff sed.

Saur♥Kraut said...

OK, OK, OK. I have been really busy and I see that, for the most part, this debate is going fine without me. If someone wants me to weigh in on anything in particular, please email me or flag me in here.

BUT: There are a couple things that need addressing:

Kathleen wrote: Religious doctrine and tradition is meddling with The Constitution IMHO. Why this has not been resolved in favor of gay unions in the courts up until now causes me concern. I realize that social 'mores' have always influenced the system of law, but it has never helped the cause of justice that I can recall. For instance the injustice commonly practiced by the legal system against women, minorities, children and the fringe thinkers. Since when was it fair and just to deny more than fifty percent of Americans the right to vote...own land...receive equal pay for equal work. Women and minorities were excluded based on the 'mores' of the time. These mores were founded in religious traditions.

This assumption/statement is rife with error. Here's why:

As Lazy and Dave (and others) can attest, I am BIG on the separation of church and state. In the past, history has shown us what can happen if this isn't in place.

However, to say that the issue of gay marriage is ONLY a religious issue is to ignore the data and the secular arguments against it.

Additionally, we DO have citizens in the USA that are very much against gay marriage (no matter what the reason is). Does the majority rule or not?

Yes, I understand that if they're minorities, somehow the majority DOESN'T rule. This is something that has only come into play in the last 100 years or so. We can tackle whether this is just or not another time. Regardless, it is what it is. So, the REAL question is: Are they minorities?

That is something that needs a lot more consideration. If you think they're sexual deviants by choice, then they are no more minorities than child molestors and necrophiliacs are.

OK, Next problematic assumption: Women and minorities were NOT excluded from voting due to mores at the time. In fact, they were INcluded due to the mores at that time.

BUT, if you wish to say they were excluded by mores of the time, you have a small argument. What you CANNOT say is that the mores "were founded in religious traditions."

What religious traditions were those, please? And if you're saying they're Biblical, please cite the book, chapter, and verse.

Now, I do realize that there were some people who mistakenly (or deliberatedly) misinterpreted the Bible to suit their prejudices and I don't deny that. BUT, such intolerance was NEVER backed up by the Bible.

If you haven't seen my post on how the Bible does NOT condone slavery, then go here. I assure you that it doesn't.

Equally, the Judaic view of women's rights was one of the most tolerant views possible at the time. It wasn't perfect, of course, but women were allowed to be property owners (which wasn't even possible in neighboring countries) and women were also often given equal status with men (see Debra the Prophetess, Sarah's contribution to Abraham's life, etc.)

There was a lot of ignorance in the 1800s, but it was not backed by the Bible, although there were times that someone would attempt to use the Bible to justify it.

The majority of people who tried to abolish slavery were Christians, for instance. I highly recommend the DVD "Amazing Grace", if you're interesting in expanding your horizons in this matter.

To sum it up: We need to be very careful about generalizing EITHER side's views. It makes it too easy for them to collapse our own ideas, and the meat of the idea is lost in the ruins.

daveawayfromhome said...

@ UL: cant take what "heat"? I see neither danger nor nonsense, that's your assumption, not mine. And yes, I choose for myself; who else?

@ Saur: "Does the majority rule or not?"

Yes and no. The majority rules, but that doesnt necessarily make it right. Perhaps you would believe de Tocqueville, rather than me:

"A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength."

Where did you get the idea that the majority does not rule? The majority does rule, but the minority has the (small) comfort of the courts. You know, one thing I got from reading de Tocqueville explains a lot about American foriegn policy: because we rule by majority, we make the assumption that whatever it is that we think (whether we are in the majority or not) is Correct Thinking. (And, no, I do not remove myslef from this distinction, but I do flatter myself that I think more about it than most - no doubt another phallacy.)
Consider, also, that these days the majority may be a "majority" of money. When lobbyists and their corporations give our "leaders" more money than the people who elect them, who do those leaders listen to?

Saur, the gay marriage issue is, for the most part, a religious one. Who are the most vocal spokespeople for that anti-gay movement? Nearly all of them have religious affiliations. We need not cite you Bible verse, especially since (I at least) am not a Biblical scholar. All we have to do is point out the Bible that the opponents of gay marriage so often seem to be holding.

And, yes, the Bible was used to oppose slavery, just as it was used to justify it. Religious texts are used to justify any and all sides of almost any arguement. Whether those texts are being "accurately" interpretted is irrelevant to those using them, and to those suffering under the interpretation.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Dave, I understand your points about majority rule vs. minority rights. Trust me.

BUT, we're still not addressing if the gays ARE a minority or a lifestyle choice. Until THIS is settled once-and-for-all, it's all moot.

The gay marriage issue IS a religious one but it IS a secular one, too. We can't dismiss one for the other.

We're in agreement that the Bible's been misused often.

It IS pretty clear about homosexuality, and the interpretation's been consistant for thousands of years. So, I do NOT say that religious people are misusing the Bible when they criticize the homosexual lifestyle. However, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage per se. Since it rules out homosexuality, it's logical to assume it rules out homosexual marriage, however.

BUT: we are still getting away from the secular arguments, which ARE on a level playing field.

daveawayfromhome said...

"BUT, we're still not addressing if the gays ARE a minority or a lifestyle choice. Until THIS is settled once-and-for-all, it's all moot."

No, it's not. Why someone is gay has nothing to do with it. It's a lifestyle choice that hurts no one and affects you not at all. What does it matter to you if, or why, your neighbors decide, as consenting adults, to get together and place various body parts together in ways in which you have no interest whatsoever.
It doesnt.
And it is your tax arguement that is the moot point. Or perhaps you would like to ban Catholic marriages as well, since they have more kids than average, thus costing the taxpayer more money than Protestants. Speaking of the cost of kids, shouldnt the lack of children in gay marriages cancel any expenses occured by multiple divorces? And how about home-schoolers? Let's give them breaks for not using costly public schools.
Hell, let's just go nuts and build us the Republican Dream nation, where the only government services anyone gets are those that they pay for, and those who get no services dont have to pay for anything.
The only people who pay for schools will be people with children in school. Libraries will rent books. All roads will be toll roads or private drives. Fire and Police services will be changed to fire and police insurance, with rescue provided by one of multiple companies whose competition will drive down prices. Wars and defense will be fought by citizen militias or mercenaries, and paid for, not with taxes, but with "security surcharges" (whose cost will be divided equally among the populace, since everybody benefits from the military).
If done correctly, the entire structure of government can be left to self-interest and market forces, leaving the sole function of government to be that of making sure that our moral habits (including proper marriage behavior) are kept sound (since there is no profit in good behavior, and a lot in bad, this obviously cannot be left to capitalism to fix).
Imagine how low taxes would be then, and no hard-working Americans would have to pay anything anymore to the undeserving poor, unless they wanted to out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yessiree-bob, that's how to make America great again.

How's that for reductio, UL?

undergroundlogician said...

Nah, it's sophomoric. You sound bitter. You're not very nice. You're so absolutist. >:P

You got the Republican Dream Nation thing wrong. Repubs are like Dems; they spend money like anyone else. So a Repub Dream Nation keeps the Repubs in power. For the reductio to work, your main premise must be true. If you were to say that Repub Dream Nation makes promises to conservatives but don't keep them but still get elected, now that's a reductio! Conservatives, who are not Repubs don't want the government to act like a private sector enterprise. It's impossible anyway. Government is a legal mafia. They come up with so many creative ways to take our money. Yes, I'm a cynic. Repub creeps.

My reductio is based on the idea that the common person sees sex as recreational; when someone (gasp) gets pregnant, then there's RU486, abortion, and if one has any shred of conscience, they have the baby and either give it up for adoption, or take the risk of keeping the baby, which is relationship repellent. The premise is sound, it is general, there are always exceptions, whereby the reductio wouldn't apply.

daveawayfromhome said...

Sophmoric? Well, perhaps, but since I have no training whatsoever in logic or rhetoric I'll just have to live with that. Boo-hoo.
Mean? Me? Snarky, maybe, or juvenile, but not mean.

And the Republicans certainly do want to be in a pay-as-you-go nation. It ties in with their loathing of taxes. They believe that any money they have is rightfully theirs, whether they earned it by assembling lawn mowers all day, or by owning a dozen third-world factories employing children at slave wages. You listen to Republicans talk about whatever it is that they're against, and it always comes down to money, money which they dont want to spend on the "undeserving".
Republicans make (or attempt to make) cuts in any program where citizens get some sort of service for free. Here in Texas, that extends even to the roads: since the Republican Party took over all the major highways proposed have been tollroads. And if the service in question is not free, then fees will be raised raised.
As for Republicans spending as much as Democrats, I dont argue that, but the GOP spends more than Democrats on subsidies for large corporate interests who apparently are more "deserving" than low-income children - it's that trickle-down thinking again, and what's good for business must be good for poor children without health care (or so they say)(publicly). But that's just plain old fashioned graft, and not part of the pay-as-you-go system.

And yeah, I suppose you could say that I'm bitter - I've spent most of my adult life watching as neo-con Republicans have worked hard to make this great nation into an oligarchy (which works so well for Mexico), joined in an unholy alliance with religious fundamentalists who seek to create a theocracy.
Since Reagan, the government has cut "entitlements", raised fees, deregulated monopolies (and stood aside as consolidation effectively created more) and increased government intrusion in my personal life, all without any noticable reduction in the money that they take from me. In a more socialist country, even if the taxes are higher, you at least get something for it - or, rather, the majority of the people get something for it.

As for your reductio, I think you oversimplify what sex means to most people. Certainly many of the young think of sex in purely recreational terms, and there are older folk, too. But for most folks, just because the occassionally engage in sex that is supposed to be meaningless, doesnt mean that it is. If your statement were true, we wouldnt have romantic comedies, only porn.

Gotta go, outta time, hope to pick up again later, because I dont think that I'm out of things to say, though you'd never know that from my blog.

daveawayfromhome said...

See a smallish debate about this and the Hagee question on MSNBC.

Kathleen said...

Just a couple of points of clarification...I said religious mores and traditions not the Bible. Christians are not the only religious folk who are hell bent on damning homosexuals. The practice seems to be a common thread in most great religions of the world.

My hope is that as we eventually realized, although instigated and carried out by the church, burning 'witches' at the stake was in truth a crime against humanity and set a clear example of evil right here on earth...regardless of the hymns that the good people sang. I hope that someday we will look back and be amazed that homosexuals were cast off by the religious as if they were the spawn of the devil himself. Maybe...I hope.

Once again Dave, I am a Republican. To my credit, I am making every effort to remember that Democrats are not all fluff and of little substance. ;>)

undergroundlogician said...

Dave:

I did oversimplify the definition of sex, but not in an arbitrary fashion just to make useless noise. If you take procreation out the definition, or reduce it to a last priority motive, then sex as orgasm is accurate; it becomes a means to give and receive pleasure. It is another means to show caring and loving; it is recreational; it is a pastime; it is an outlet. So to call sex merely an orgasm is a harsh but direct definition. Homos simply live out the definition believed by most contracepting heteroes, but homos are vilified for their sex because it doesn't follow the hetero book.

So, hetero contraceptors have NO argument against gays who are defacto contraceptors, and they do it with 100% effectiveness. And, the gay community is gaining momentum and political power. This is what happens when people mindlessly redefine classic natural law principles into notions that fit their level of morality. Griswold vs. Connecticut and the penumbric "right to privacy" has created a deadly cultural monster.

How do we capture this monster, and destroy it before it destroys us? By a comprehensive conversion of hearts and minds in individual people. No laws can change this; no judicial fiats can alter people's thinking. Only a change in heart. Lord have mercy on us.

daveawayfromhome said...

Kathleen, are you a Republican, or a conservative? Because you can be a Republican without showing any sign of conservative behavior. They sure as hell arent fiscally conservative, they havent got the market cornered on morality (quite the contrary, I'd say), and they cant even manage to stay the hell out of people's business anymore. The Republican Party* is the party of Big Money, it is all they care about, it is what they worship, it what they obey.
I dont have a problem with conservatives. They're a necessary brake on the exuberance of progressives, just as liberals are the kick in the ass that society sometimes needs to look up from its own selfish concerns.
Believe me, when Democrats are in charge, I wont be much happier with them. As far as I'm concerned, the country's in the best shape when neither side has full control, and they have to play nice to get anything done.

UL, I just dont see your monster. It's not there. Sex is not the problem, treating people like commodities is, and that's a side effect of pure capitalism, not homosexuality, or birth control, or divorce. If you want people to worship God and value each other as human beings, you're going to have to replace the way we worship money and put a monetary value on everything - which brings us back to Saur's arguement again. Once we say "justice is too expensive", then the dream of America is dead. Maybe it can be revived, but not with a chequebook.

By the way, religion is not the sole road to morality, it's just the easiest (personally, I like religion, but like college or waterskiing, it's not for everybody).

* I'm talking leadership, not necessarily those who "belong" to the party.

daveawayfromhome said...

okay, last comment, I think. Obviously everyone else seems to be over it.

"A strong conviction that somthing must be done is the parent of many bad measures."

Daniel Webster

Saur♥Kraut said...

WOW. I stand in amazement to see the foment this caused.