Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

[Makavali]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Go back to a Hindu country if you can’t stomach it.[/quote]

That about sums up whee most of your arguments come from I guess. It’s a pity gay people don’t have their own country. Maybe they could all go back to San Francisco?

[PRCalDude]

The majority of a society cannot wish away the rights of the minority in this country.

That’s right. And the gays have been deprived of none of their rights under the Constitution.

[Makavali]

[quote]wirewound wrote:
Of course, it doesn’t matter because Americans are free to practice whatever religion they like. It is what makes us better than other countries and it really shouldn’t be culled from our national character.[/quote]

You’ll find it’s not just America this applies to. Generally, any country that separates religion from the State will be one of the major players of Western Civilization.

Note that I said generally, because there are exceptions to this rule.

[Makavali]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s right. And the gays have been deprived of none of their rights under the Constitution. [/quote]

Aside from the right to equality.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That’s right. And the gays have been deprived of none of their rights under the Constitution.

Aside from the right to equality.[/quote]

Not under the current interpretation of the Constitution. But I’d tend to agree with you.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That’s right. And the gays have been deprived of none of their rights under the Constitution.

Aside from the right to equality.[/quote]

I feel like I’m talking to a small child.

They won’t have it even with gay “marriage.” Two men getting “married” is qualitatively different than a man and a woman. A relationship between two men has different qualities than a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course, what you mean is that they don’t have equality because they can’t marry each other the way they can marry a woman, which is really just a definitional change, not an issue of equality. But now I’m just repeating things I’ve already said.

[Makavali]

Repeating yourself? So am I. You’re telling them their union is worth less by denying them the word. And then I point out how the word isn’t exclusively Christian, then you say that Western society is based on Christianity, then I point out Western society is actually based on it’s ability to adapt, then you get offended and start telling me to go back to my Hindu country.

Sound right?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Repeating yourself? So am I. You’re telling them their union is worth less by denying them the word.[/quote]

They’re denying themselves the word unless they want to switch teams.

[PRCalDude]

And then I point out how the word isn’t exclusively Christian, then you say that Western society is based on Christianity, then I point out Western society is actually based on it’s ability to adapt, then you get offended and start telling me to go back to my Hindu country.

Western society is based on its ability to adapt and not on its laws, traditions, history, and morals. Got it.

[Makavali]

Now you have to tell me to go back to whatever Hindu country I came from and thus the circle or bigotry is complete.

[Makavali]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
They’re denying themselves the word unless they want to switch teams. [/quote]

You actually still think being gay is a lifestyle choice?

[Beowolf]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
And then I point out how the word isn’t exclusively Christian, then you say that Western society is based on Christianity, then I point out Western society is actually based on it’s ability to adapt, then you get offended and start telling me to go back to my Hindu country.

Western society is based on its ability to adapt and not on its laws, traditions, history, and morals. Got it. [/quote]

It is the traditions, history, and morals that have ADAPTED.

It’s laws, traditions and morals are one helluva lot different each century.

The Middle East? Using the same morals as they did a thousand years ago.

Get it now?

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
And then I point out how the word isn’t exclusively Christian, then you say that Western society is based on Christianity, then I point out Western society is actually based on it’s ability to adapt, then you get offended and start telling me to go back to my Hindu country.

Western society is based on its ability to adapt and not on its laws, traditions, history, and morals. Got it.

It is the traditions, history, and morals that have ADAPTED.

It’s laws, traditions and morals are one helluva lot different each century.

The Middle East? Using the same morals as they did a thousand years ago.

Get it now?[/quote]

Not really. There’s no reason to exchange one value for another unless the new value is demonstrably better than the old. There has to be some way of determining that, otherwise we’re all adopting Obama’s banal “change” mantra and may be headed backward, not forward.

The seventh century morals that the Middle East uses are actually retrograde standards enforced by a certain man and his followers living about the same time. In many ways, his morals, now the standard, were several steps back from the prevailing morals of the time, so the adaptation wasn’t worthwhile in that case. As Aisha said, “The believing women suffer the most.” Further, Surah 9:5 wasn’t a cultural norm until that man made it so.

We can objectively determine which culture’s values produce the most wealth and happiness by looking at immigration patterns. People vote with their feet. Plenty of people seem to be moving permanently to the West, but very few are moving in the other directions. Just look at Makavali. He’s not living in a Hindu land. He’s living in a country with a major city called “Christchurch,” meanwhile criticizing the Judeo-christian aspect of it.

[Makavali]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We can objectively determine which culture’s values produce the most wealth and happiness by looking at immigration patterns. People vote with their feet. Plenty of people seem to be moving permanently to the West, but very few are moving in the other directions. Just look at Makavali. He’s not living in a Hindu land. He’s living in a country with a major city called “Christchurch,” meanwhile criticizing the Judeo-christian aspect of it.[/quote]

I know quite well I’m not living in a Hindu land. There’s a range of hills called the Bombay Hill’s (just to throw random fact out there).

I’m not criticizing the Judeo-Christian aspect of NZ because here we have a clear cut definition between Religion and State. All religious parties here get knocked down pretty quickly or are a very very small minority.

I like how you completely missed the point of Beowolf’s post too. Spectacular.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
…You’re telling them their union is worth less by denying them the word. …[/quote]

IMHO, risking hurt feelings is not worth risking the adverse effects that have thus far at least coincided with this exact redefinition of marriage in effectively comparable societies (Western Europe).

[Makavali]

Adverse effects?

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:

Conservatism in general is rooted in avoidance of the hubris of assuming one has enough understanding of complex institutions that have evolved over generations to monkey with their essences, as well as a healthy appreciation of the law of unintended consequences.

wirewound wrote:

Note that this ALWAYS places conservatism on the losing side of history. Insofar as we have made progress, conservatism has been a hindrance. This means that anytime effort is put forth to create a new system to correct the mistakes of the old system, conservatism is a hindrance.

The Romans and Jews that rejected Christ were conservatives. In the Revolutionary War, the conservatives were the Tories. In the Civil War, the conservatives were the Confederates. In the battle for civil rights, the conservatives were the southerners who wanted to continue segregation. Always and eventually, the conservatives lose. No wonder they’re so fucking pissed all the time.

I think it’s hubris to think that changing the institution of marriage to include homosexuals would be more damaging to marriage than, say, a consumerist culture that encourages discarding the old and replacing it with the newest model. Can marriage really be expected to survive in a society where one is always expected to obtain the newest and best of everything?

In the end, it doesn’t matter what the conservatives think, because in the end, the conservatives ALWAYS lose. That warms the cockles of my heart.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Interesting little reality you’ve constructed for yourself there - I suppose at least your cockles are nice and toasty inside…

First, while it may make you feel good to essentially define progress as movement, they aren’t synonymous. A change can be for the worse - and when progressives win, it often is, if not in whole cloth then at least in large measure.

wirewound wrote:

Ending slavery was a change for the worse? Ending segregation was a change for the worse? Greater religious freedom was a change for the worse? The enlightenment was a change for the worse?[/quote]

That’s not what I said, and you know that’s not what I said. The New Deal and the Great Society were largely changes for the worse. The re-introduction of racial quotas into the law was largely a change for the worse. No-fault divorce was largely negative.

You’ve broadly painted “conservative” as being against any sort of change, thus allowing you to define any change with positive effect as a conservative loss - with positive effect.

ADDENDUM: Here are some interesting posts that attempt to get at the essence of Burkean conservatism, which is appropriate for this topic, given his eventual thinking on the French Revolution:

http://vox-nova.com/2008/06/18/edmund-burkes-anti-ideology/

[quote]wirewound wrote:

I’m curious though - name a conservative victory that increased the liberty and freedom of the people. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that I can’t think of one of the top of my head. Maybe you can? [/quote]

Off the top of my head, in the last century, a few small ones come to mind: Resisting socialism, communism, anarchy, etc. - and winning, for now.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Secondly, your history suffers from a “dog that didn’t bark” problem. When conservatives win, no change is noted, so it’s not recorded as a big event.

wirewound wrote:

It does often take a bit of investigation to see when a conservative victory had a consequential effect on the growth of a nation. Here’s one though: Britain’s reliance on coal. It was an old energy economy that fueled Britain’s greatness, but holding on to it well past it’s prime caused Britain to lose out as petroleum and other energy economies and their attendant technologies rose to prominence. This was very much a ‘victory’ for conservatism, as the economic power structure at the time was the force responsible for clinging to coal.[/quote]

See, again, this just goes with your definition of conservative as someone resisting any change. A “conservative” position in this case would also have been promoting capitalistic competition. All you’ve pointed out is a case of rent seeking by entrenched economic interest - a major problem when the government gets into the business of economic planning.

One could easily point to government sponsorship of failed technologies and investments in “change” boondoggles - such as Kruschev’s attempt to convert Soviet agriculture to corn from wheat (by attempting a mass planting of corn in areas in which it was unsuited to grow).

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

It may eventually change, or it may stay the same, or circumstances may change that either make the concerns irrelevant (w/r/t polyandry, another large war knocking out a large percentage of the male population would be that type of change) or moot the desire to change at all. When conservatives lose and are correct, society changes - maybe for the worse, but no one is noting that but perhaps a bunch of grumpy old guys who lost that particular battle - unless conservatives lost and a societal tipping point was reached, like the fall of the Roman Empire, for instance.

When progressives lose and drop a cause, no one notes it really. It’s only the big changes that are noted. But their noting doesn’t mean that they always or inevitably happen. Change, yes - the type of change you want or envision? Maybe not - how do you suppose all those Islamic immigrants into the Western European “countries of tolerance” view gay marriage? What’s the fertility rate over there again?

wirewound wrote:

True, and I agree with the conservatives regarding immigration. Liberal immigration policy is suicidal. [/quote]

For clarity: Not just immigration policy in terms of numbers and sources (particularly family unification and a bias against educated, skilled immigrants), but also in terms of changing the focus away from assimilation.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

As to your specific historical examples, they’re all so facile as to be laughable, but that said, w/r/t Jesus, who cares? W/r/t the Revolution, the Tories lost - but then the Federalists, not the anti-Federalists, won on how to construct the government and the Constitution.

wirewound wrote:

I didn’t realize ‘who cares’ was a legitimate debate technique. If the example was facile, a legitimate counter-point should be EASY to produce.[/quote]

It is when the example is irrelevant, even to your own point. The Clinton Administration’s reaction to David Koresh would also be irrelevant. I don’t recall the big wins for Roman society that occurred because Christianity spread? And I’m not trying to debate religion here, just noting I have no idea what you’re trying to imply about a positive effect on Roman society, given the history of the empire during the rise and spread of Christianity.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

And defining the Civil War as simply a conflict between progressives and conservatives is just too mind boggling to even categorize - suffice it to say the Southern states had some pretty radical ideas, such as breaking up the Union and repudiating their debts.

wirewound wrote:

I didn’t define the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, as the Southerners are fond of calling it) as simply a conflict between progressives and conservatives. The South may have had radical ideas, but those ideas were not in favor of creating greater liberty for a greater number of people - they served the interest of maintaining the social and economic status quo and hence can be considered ‘conservative’ ideas.[/quote]

Look, the Confederacy was an oligarchy - essentially feudalism - but it wasn’t “conservative” as such. Some might argue that “states rights” and a confederacy of “sovereign” states all maintaining their various rights, privileges, and immunities, each equal and surrendering to a central government only minimal powers, would have meant greater freedom, but that’s only in theory, as in reality each state was run by and for the large landowners (the majority of whom were deeply in debt due to trade with the British). In point of fact, the creation of the Confederacy would have meant the creation of what amounted to a British satellite as a neighbor of the U.S. Without direct British and French intervention on the side of the Confederacy, its hopes for victory were virtually nil. The British, of course, had outlawed slavery long ago - but they took the side of the Confederacy here.

It’s a highly romanticized to view the Civil War as the progressive North versus a conservative South. As far as most people in the North were concerned, it was a war to preserve the Union and subjugate the rebels. There was certainly a small-but-loud abolitionist movement in New England, particularly - but it wasn’t just “progressive vs. conservative”, and the people hewing to the “conservative” position of keeping the Union exactly unchanged were in the North.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

With marriage, sadly, there are many attacks on it - which doesn’t seem to be a good argument to pile on, at least to me. I don’t think anyone knows the tipping point - but some parts of our society have reached it, and it looks as if Europe has reached it as well…

wirewound wrote:

My argument is that broadening the constituency that has access to marriage is not a primary danger to the institution. A consumerist, ‘newest-greatest-best’, ‘upgrade at the earliest convenience’ cultural climate is far more damaging.

My argument is that it may not be the primary danger, but that does not mean it’s an unimportant one.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Adverse effects?[/quote]

Refer to my previous posts on the illegitimacy rates and marriage rates in the U.S. and northern Europe, and the articles I posted by Stanley Kurtz.

ADDENDUM: Also see the three linked articles I had previously posted to you.

[Makavali]

But that’s human nature. You can’t say gay marriage is going to make infidelity worse. If anything the fact that it isn’t recognized as a legitimate union means they consider their relationships to be a joke on a subconscious level and therefore are more likely to cheat.

I realize this has no real basis, but I like to make random assumptions about things that might potentially happen.

How about easing in equal rights for homosexual couples so we can see whether they are more likely to cheat when they aren’t being stigmatized by the government? No wait, I forgot that we’re not allowed to usher in any form of change.

I’m going to go ahead and assume that the Western world has never tried new things before. That’s why women still belong to men and can’t vote, interracial marriages are still illegal and slavery is still kosher.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
But that’s human nature. You can’t say gay marriage is going to make infidelity worse. If anything the fact that it isn’t recognized as a legitimate union means they consider their relationships to be a joke on a subconscious level and therefore are more likely to cheat.

I realize this has no real basis, but I like to make random assumptions about things that might potentially happen.

How about easing in equal rights for homosexual couples so we can see whether they are more likely to cheat when they aren’t being stigmatized by the government? No wait, I forgot that we’re not allowed to usher in any form of change.

I’m going to go ahead and assume that the Western world has never tried new things before. That’s why women still belong to men and can’t vote, interracial marriages are still illegal and slavery is still kosher.[/quote]

Race-based slavery was a change introduced by the modern European western world - just a little tweak to an old idea, of course, so what could possibly have been worrisome? Eugenics was another change - led by progressives… Change has a direction, and it’s not always “positive”.