SOME good election news: Fla. Marriage Amendment Winning by Large Margin

[civil42806]

Well I'm a strong supporter of the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.  Why should they be the only ones allowed to be happy

[JeffreyS]

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
  - Isaac Asimov

Saw this on google quotes and thought it might provoke some thought for some ideal logs.

[RiversideGator]

Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.

It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.

Not at all.  I reject the concept that the future is simply a path towards more and more licentiousness.  History also casts doubt on this idea as there appears to be more of a pendulum with culture as the sinfulness of one era is followed by morality in another era and vice versa.  For example, the worst excesses of the Roman era were eventually supplanted by the new religion of Christianity and the somewhat libertine 1700s were followed by the relative chastity of the Victorian era.  Our future also might just as easily involve a rejection of the degrading popular culture of today in favor of a celebration of what is right and good.

And I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?

1.  80% is not the correct divorce rate for the United States.  This is a bogus number you are using to make things appear worse than they are.  Having said that, the divorce rates appear to be about 40-50% for those who get married and are far too high.  There is also always room for improvement.

2.  According to the CDC, the rough numbers are for every 4 people who got married in 2005 a little less than 2 got a divorce:

Number of marriages: 2,230,000

Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population

Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

I have also heard reports of the divorce rate falling even further in 2008, even accounting for cohabitation.

3. The fact that a 3,000 year old institution has some problems is not an argument for perverting the very meaning of the institution.  It is an argument for strengthening the institution.

4.  Your entire argument reeks of sour grapes.  You say the institution is worthless and is merely excrement yet you seem compelled to post lengthy essays attacking marriage.  Frankly, IMO homosexuals are not doing themselves any favors by attacking normal society.

[CMG22]

Oh, but RSG--your argument above as well as throughout the rest of this thread reek of someone who mistakes moralism for morality.  The only thing that thought like yours accomplishes is protecting the sanctimony of marriage, not its sanctity (regardless of what may or may not be left of that).

Sure, the pendulum may swing as a culture moves from times of excess to times of conservatism, but the idea of liberty for all is something that should pervade our culture despite any swing of the pendulum.

I believe you are simply prejudiced against anything you do not consider "normal."  The trouble with that prejudice is that it is not your position to say what truly is normal.  Even if it were, everyone here in the US of A are guaranteed equal rights, normal or queer (in the broad sense), so long as one's behavior does not demonstrate a severe pathology.

While we're on the subject of normal vs. queer (in the broad sense), one cannot judge sexual orientation or human sexuality in general as one's behavior deviates from arithmetic mean sexuality.  Determining normalcy based on an arithmetic mean is practical when judging variation in something simple like body temperature--not when judging something as complex as who and how someone may raise my body temperature... 

[ChriswUfGator]

Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.

It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.

Not at all.  I reject the concept that the future is simply a path towards more and more licentiousness.  History also casts doubt on this idea as there appears to be more of a pendulum with culture as the sinfulness of one era is followed by morality in another era and vice versa.  For example, the worst excesses of the Roman era were eventually supplanted by the new religion of Christianity and the somewhat libertine 1700s were followed by the relative chastity of the Victorian era.  Our future also might just as easily involve a rejection of the degrading popular culture of today in favor of a celebration of what is right and good.

And I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?

1.  80% is not the correct divorce rate for the United States.  This is a bogus number you are using to make things appear worse than they are.  Having said that, the divorce rates appear to be about 40-50% for those who get married and are far too high.  There is also always room for improvement.

2.  According to the CDC, the rough numbers are for every 4 people who got married in 2005 a little less than 2 got a divorce:

Number of marriages: 2,230,000

Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population

Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

I have also heard reports of the divorce rate falling even further in 2008, even accounting for cohabitation.

3. The fact that a 3,000 year old institution has some problems is not an argument for perverting the very meaning of the institution.  It is an argument for strengthening the institution.

4.  Your entire argument reeks of sour grapes.  You say the institution is worthless and is merely excrement yet you seem compelled to post lengthy essays attacking marriage.  Frankly, IMO homosexuals are not doing themselves any favors by attacking normal society.

My stats were local, yours are national. Additionally, you are relying on a faulty stat, because comparing the number of divorces per X number people is a non-sequitur, when there is no corresponding stat for how many of those people are actually married. Your stats are misleading. Mine actually address the question at hand.

What you're saying is that there's only X number of divorces per XXX people, but that's meaningless. The only thing that matters is X number of divorces per XXX number of MARRIED people. Duh. The national divorce rate, according to your source, is at least 50%. Still not odds I'd take, when I'm betting everything I own. And locally, the rate is closer to 80%. Lol. You have to compare apples to apples.

[RiversideGator]

My stats were local, yours are national.

Your "local stats" come from dubious sources.  The first one appears to be a quote of a 10 year old Times-Union article although the original article is not linked.  So, the information contained therein is not current and may not have even been accurate in 1999.

The second one is from an article on public schools which says:
"Duval County School District serves a challenging student population whose adult population has a 46% functional illiteracy rate. Additionally, the population has a divorce rate of 73%, a poverty rate of 17%, and a mobility rate of almost 40%, which is approximately 7% higher than the state’s mobility rate."

What is the source of this stat?  For what year is it?  Is the population referenced just the parents of the Duval County public school kids in 2001?  It is not at all clear from the article so the source is really not clear and therefore not credible.

Additionally, you are relying on a faulty stat, because comparing the number of divorces per X number people is a non-sequitur, when there is no corresponding stat for how many of those people are actually married. Your stats are misleading. Mine actually address the question at hand.

What you're saying is that there's only X number of divorces per XXX people, but that's meaningless. The only thing that matters is X number of divorces per XXX number of MARRIED people. Duh. The national divorce rate, according to your source, is at least 50%.

Apparently you either did not read my post or have reading comprehension issues.  My post clearly cites the most recent statistics available from the CDC listing the national divorce rate and the national marriage rate per 1000 total population.  As the marriage rate is over twice the divorce rate, it stands to reason that less than half of all marriages end in divorce.  This stat is crystal clear.  What did you say?  Oh yes.  Duh...

And, again, the success of marriage at present is not the issue.  Despite current high divorce rates, the institution is nonetheless a valid one and is the foundation of civilized society whether or not you choose to admit it for reasons of personal sexual predilection.  Marriage also has been more successful in previous times in this country and is more successful today in other cultures.  The problem today is our open sewer culture which celebrates depravity.  Once that situation is improved, the marriage rate will also improve.

Still not odds I'd take, when I'm betting everything I own.

You do not have to marry a woman (provided you could convince one to marry you) although that is your right just like everyone else.

Let's drop the sour grapes routine now, shall we.   

[RiversideGator]

Oh, but RSG--your argument above as well as throughout the rest of this thread reek of someone who mistakes moralism for morality.  The only thing that thought like yours accomplishes is protecting the sanctimony of marriage, not its sanctity (regardless of what may or may not be left of that).

Was this something you read on a bumper sticker?  Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.

Sure, the pendulum may swing as a culture moves from times of excess to times of conservatism, but the idea of liberty for all is something that should pervade our culture despite any swing of the pendulum.

Liberty does pervade our culture.  But this does not now and never has meant gay marriage.  Sodomy itself was just recently decriminalized after being illegal for the entire history of the Republic.  Such "progress" is actually a symptom not of liberty but is instead a victory for libertine values which have proven devastating for societies throughout human history.

I believe you are simply prejudiced against anything you do not consider "normal."  The trouble with that prejudice is that it is not your position to say what truly is normal.

You are right.  It is not my position.  But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society. 

[CMG22]

Was this something you read on a bumper sticker?  Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.

Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one.  Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.

You are right.  It is not my position.  But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society. 

Even if we ignore historical evidence, just because there is a common thread of error throughout global cultural development exists, it does not mean we cannot acknowledge it in the present and move forward.  People for thousands of years thought the Earth was flat, and that there were four elements, etc.  Popular beliefs throughout history do not make current beliefs fact.

However, history does not support your argument, even if it were sound.  Although it is a poor example, pederasty was practiced in every ancient culture of note--in both the west, and the east.  It continued through the ages in different forms; in some areas was accepted as late as the 19th century.  There is even debate on whether Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13 refer to a pederastic relationship--but I know how you feel about using the Bible against you.  Also, and do spare me the Catholic bashing, but even Pope Julius III was believed to have had engaged in pederasty with his adoptive nephew.  So too did many other figures of note throughout history.

Ignore pederasty.  There are still many examples of homosexuality throughout history.  Plato's Symposium describes an army of same sex lovers to defend the city state.  There was the Sacred Band of Thebes.  Hercules had male lovers, as did Achilles with Patroclus and Alexander the Great with Hephaestion.

There are so many other examples of homosexuality, transvestism, and the like through the ages and across cultures that one could write many books on the subject.

For you to dismiss homosexuality as aberrant simply because it hasn't existed out in the open within cultures ruled by Christian morality does NOT make it aberrant or dysfunctional.

Speaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE.  He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies for whom no other charges could be drawn. 

[RiversideGator]

Are you honestly attempting to argue that the historical rarity of wealth and/or education has any connection to whether or not homosexual conduct should be celebrated or condoned today?  I am not sure that I would accuse someone else of being "boneheaded" if I were making such a fatuous argument.   

[RiversideGator]

Was this something you read on a bumper sticker?  Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.

Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one.  Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.

Sanctimony doesnt really seem to apply here. 

sanc⋅ti⋅mo⋅ny
1.    pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimony

What is pretended, affected or hypocritical about my position?  I am not homosexual myself, I am married, and I am a student of history who is aware that all successful and healthy cultures and all religions have considered homosexual behavior immoral and have taken steps to limit homosexual behavior.  So, I am sorry but your attempted put down does not fly here.

You are right.  It is not my position.  But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society. 

Even if we ignore historical evidence, just because there is a common thread of error throughout global cultural development exists, it does not mean we cannot acknowledge it in the present and move forward.  People for thousands of years thought the Earth was flat, and that there were four elements, etc.  Popular beliefs throughout history do not make current beliefs fact.

What exactly is your point with this passage except to present the logical fallacy of a false analogy?  Thinking the world is flat (it clearly is not) is not the same thing as thinking that embracing homosexuality is not conducive to having a healthy society (it clearly is).

However, history does not support your argument, even if it were sound.  Although it is a poor example, pederasty was practiced in every ancient culture of note--in both the west, and the east.  It continued through the ages in different forms; in some areas was accepted as late as the 19th century.  There is even debate on whether Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13 refer to a pederastic relationship--but I know how you feel about using the Bible against you.  Also, and do spare me the Catholic bashing, but even Pope Julius III was believed to have had engaged in pederasty with his adoptive nephew.  So too did many other figures of note throughout history.

Ignore pederasty.  There are still many examples of homosexuality throughout history.  Plato's Symposium describes an army of same sex lovers to defend the city state.  There was the Sacred Band of Thebes.  Hercules had male lovers, as did Achilles with Patroclus and Alexander the Great with Hephaestion.

There are so many other examples of homosexuality, transvestism, and the like through the ages and across cultures that one could write many books on the subject.

Pederasty is "practiced" today also in some segments of society.  What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? 

And, are you comparing adult homosexual relations to man-boy abuse?  Both are deviant practices, I agree, but clearly the abuse of minors is far worse.  In any event, the fact that a deviant sexual behavior occurred in the past is not an argument that it should be celebrated today or that such relationships should be made an equivalent of standard marriage today as all deviant and improper sexual behaviors have also occurred in the past.  There is nothing new under the sun, my friend.

Oh and BTW no serious Biblical scholar would agree with you that the Bible condones pederasty.  That is frankly absurd on its face.

For you to dismiss homosexuality as aberrant simply because it hasn't existed out in the open within cultures ruled by Christian morality does NOT make it aberrant or dysfunctional.

If the fact that the sex act is unhealthy, does not aid in the production of offspring and is reviled by the vast majority of people both today and in the past does not make it aberrant and dysfunctional, I dont know what does.

Speaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE.  He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies

hahaha.  Interesting rewriting of the Bible.  What is your source?  gay.blogspot.com?

Finally, I have not made Christianity of "tenet of my argument".  You did.  There are many many non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and sodomy generally.

[ChriswUfGator]

My stats were local, yours are national.

Your "local stats" come from dubious sources. 

Yes, that Times-Union is just such a "dubious" source...

LOL

[ChriswUfGator]

Liberty does pervade our culture.  But this does not now and never has meant gay marriage.  Sodomy itself was just recently decriminalized after being illegal for the entire history of the Republic.  Such "progress" is actually a symptom not of liberty but is instead a victory for libertine values which have proven devastating for societies throughout human history.

Yes, and since we're talking about stupid laws in Texas, then walking your pig on the street on Sunday is illegal. It also is illegal to shoot a buffalo from a second story window of a hotel. But not any other floor. It's also illegal to take more than 3 sips of beer while standing. *yawn*

If you want to go back and start talking about 150 year-old laws and what little sense they make, then at least let's discuss the whole picture shall we...

[RiversideGator]

Yet another false analogy.  Those clearly frivolous laws are not analogous to the bans on sodomy and gay "marriage".  BTW, you can make the same "argument" in favor of lifting the ban on bigamy, child abuse, drug use, murder, etc, etc.  It would be just as specious then too.

[CMG22]

Was this something you read on a bumper sticker?  Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.

Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one.  Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.

Sanctimony doesnt really seem to apply here. 

sanc⋅ti⋅mo⋅ny
1.    pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimony

What is pretended, affected or hypocritical about my position?  I am not homosexual myself, I am married, and I am a student of history who is aware that all successful and healthy cultures and all religions have considered homosexual behavior immoral and have taken steps to limit homosexual behavior.  So, I am sorry but your attempted put down does not fly here.

Oh, it does indeed fly (and my commercial pilot license makes me the expert on this matterâ€"thanks for the metaphor ).

From your same source:

af⋅fect⋅ed â€"adjective
1.   acted upon; influenced.
2.   influenced in a harmful way; impaired, harmed, or attacked, as by climate or disease.

How is your religious devotion and/or righteousness affected?  One can only guessâ€"perhaps by some demonic spirit?  My guess would be the same one that occupies Fred Phelps.

If we really want to get into the words though, I suppose sanctimonious was not the best word.  Perhaps supercilious?  ...at least in your heterosexuality relative to homosexuals.

Oh and BTW no serious Biblical scholar would agree with you that the Bible condones pederasty.  That is frankly absurd on its face.

Please do not put words in my mouth sir.  I said there is debate on whether or not Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13 refer to a pederastic relationship.  Though I am curious if by “serious Biblical scholar,” you mean someone who studies the Bible which they already believe is THE word, as currently written in the KJV.  Or does it more correctly mean someone who studies the Bible from a literary stance:  as a story written by people with their own biases, describing things that occurred many decades (if not centuries) before they lived, using their ancient vernacular, and to finally be translated before its meaning can even be considered by you and I?

If the fact that the sex act is unhealthy, does not aid in the production of offspring and is reviled by the vast majority of people both today and in the past does not make it aberrant and dysfunctional, I dont know what does.

Unhealthy?  I would say that most any sex act offers physical exercise, which would certainly not hurt the average American.  Please do articulate yourself as to its health detriments.

Aid in the production of offspring?  I suppose we should reenact the sodomy laws, and also disallow oral sex, masturbation, male-female anal sex, and contraceptives?  Forbid sterile people from having sex at all?  If you really want to use that as an argument, you must follow through with all of it, Sir.

Reviled by the vast majority of people today and in the past?  Data please. 

Speaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE.  He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies

hahaha.  Interesting rewriting of the Bible.  What is your source?  gay.blogspot.com?

Thanks for the idea.  I checked it out.  It’s simple, but kind of funny.  Anywho.  No, actually not.  Check out Ezekiel 16:49-50.  I would say that sums it up well.  Now, check out Justinian’s NOVEL 141.

If you really wanna stick with the story of Sodom being about homosexuality though, you have to wonder why he later impregnates both of his daughters.  Better to smite people who have relations with no chance for reproduction, rather than to stop inbreeding, huh?

Finally, I have not made Christianity of "tenet of my argument".  You did.  There are many many non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and sodomy generally.

What non-religious reasons are there to oppose gay marriage and sodomy?  Enumerate them for me, please?  (Do not include “people don’t approve of it.”  People have disapproved of many things in the past, which we now see as completely wrong.  Objective things, only.)