Minor technical note that doesn’t really affect the issue here, but it’s important to distinguish between morality (what we decide are good and bad) and “the moral sense” (which evolved, and is like an emotion).
As with other things, we use our instincts to inform our choices, but most of us (hopefully) don’t trust our instincts blindly or always believe everything they tell us. Furthermore, there’s a bit of a feedback loop, and our thoughts and choices act as new inputs to our moral sense, so the latter, while largely instinctive, isn’t set in stone and unchanging.
For example, our moral sense might lead us to feel like we’re entitled to shoot our lover’s lover, but our moral code might forbid it.
First, we are not the universe, so the universe not caring about us is irrelevant when it comes to how humans treat each other. And second, humanism is to a large degree based on human needs and desires, which are not arbitrary; they are a preexisting condition we are born into. And third, humans actually exist, unlike gods.
They aren’t “entirely arbitrary”, and why should anyone outside of a philosopher care about the “Absolute”? The collective enlightened self interest and desires of humanity is a better base for morality and the goals of society than some “Absolute” that we can’t even detect and have no reason to assume is “good” in any meaningful sense.
No, it can’t. There’s no such higher authority (both in there being no gods, and nothing but bare assertion to the claim that they are morally “higher” than us), and even if there was no agreement on what it/they wants. Someone claiming that their god hates gays is just slapping the god’s name on their opinion; they have no evidence of what their god wants even if it was real. Or that we should do what it says for that mater.
My position? That wasn’t my personal position (although I do have at least a little bit of sympathy with it); it was my attempt to explain (in response to James52637 why “anyone has an issue with it if it doesn’t directly affect them.”
Well, there is the argument advanced by a small segment of the gay community, that says marriage is an oppressive institution, and same-sex marriage amounts to heterosexist assimilation, or even cultural genocide.
The study is bullshit, but I never asked for sound arguments, so technically that does answer the question.
The “white-picket-fencing of gay America” argument gatorslap brought up is one I’d seen and forgotten about. I think activists of that ilk are a lot quieter lately. Or possibly more marginalized
Rights of others matter whether or not they affect you personally. If you believed homosexuality was sexual perversion, it’s not unreasonable that you’d do your best to help children avoid that environment. If you believed a zygote was a human with all the rights of any other child, then others aborting it is as abhorrent as letting a mother beat her child to death in a Dairy Queen parking lot.
In all honesty, I see gay marriage as a conservative position, and I have never understood why more conservatives don’t support it. The more liberal position is to get rid of marriage and have only domestic partnerships, or even cohabitation benefits without registration.
Because they deeply, rabidly hate homosexuals, and see forbidding them marriage as a means of persecuting them. There’s no underlying moral principle here, just the hatred.
It really is all about hatred, and pandering to the hatred; there’s no profit to be made here beyond that pandering.
It seems to me that if you’re not fond of homosexuals, that’s all the more reason to think they should get married, settle down in the suburbs and “blend in” with straight society and stop making waves.
I am not very good at understanding the mindset of bigots.
Wait a second, a whole page of responses later and nobody wanted to challenge this?
OK, let’s take the Netherlands, the go-to country when looking at the “effects” of gay marriage.Here are some stats.
Well, yes, there are fewer people getting married. There isn’t quite as much interest in marriage here. My in-laws got married for tax reasons; they just went to the town hall on a Tuesday (the day it’s free) and signed on the dotted line. My SO had already been born. Many people get a “partnership” instead, I’m not sure if that has been counted as the same thing in this study. From people in my age group (steadily approaching thirty) I don’t know any who are married,* and many who are in committed monogamous relationships. I don’t think I’ll get married, it just seems silly to me. I’ve been in a relationship for 11 years now. What could marriage possibly change about that? I just want to add this perspective to the data, because there is clearly a cultural difference in the significance and importance of marriage, a difference that is not necessarily related to the importance of a committed relationship or the raising of children within a stable partnership.
Back to statistics: in the US in 2008, 29.5% of all families with children were single-parent households. In the Netherlands that was 16%. So despite there being less marriage (and also less divorce), more children grow up in two-parent families.
Many of these families are same-sex. I grew up with that. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but the findings of the Regnerus study seem vastly unsupported in my experience. My 2 uncles raised their 2 kids, who are very successful and happy. I went to primary school with one girl raised by 2 daddies and one boy raised by 2 mummies (and a daddy on the weekends), secondary school with a girl raised by 2 mums. They are fine. My parents have several friends in SSMs who are raising happy children. I have friends in committed same-sex relationships who might have kids some day, and I have every reason to believe they too will be able to provide children with a stable and loving environment. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
If anything, I think the incompatible baby-making machinery means it is a real choice to have kids and not an easy road to take, upping the chances of having extremely committed parents.
So, yes, fewer people getting married. Also fewer people getting divorced. (Possibly equal amounts of people in legally-bound relationships because of the Dutch option of having a “partnership”.) Fewer children being raised in broken homes. Happy same-sex marriages and non-marriages raising happy kids.
Your theory does not compute for the Netherlands, where we’ve been proudly supporting SSM since 2001
A few in the UK, 1 acquaintance who is married, some slightly older friends in their mid-thirties. That’s it.
Gracey
Thank you for proving my point. In societies where gay marriage is legal there is less interest in marriage. Your statistics bear that out. Obviously Holland is a much different country than America and the norms regarding childbirth, cohabititation and marriage are much different. Yet we see that even in Holland, after gay marriage was legalized fewer people got married and there was more single motherhood.
In the US there is much more single motherhood, and divorce already. So adding gay marriage would make a bad situation worse, whereas in Holland it made a good situation slightly less good.
Your anecdotes are meaningless, Bill Clinton never met his father and his step-father was an abusive alchoholic, yet he became rich and famous. Does that mean having an abusive step-father is good for you? Of course not, to know about a population you have to study the whole population and not just a few members. Every study shows that have a mom and dad are much better for a kid than have just one. The more kids grow up in intact families the fewer delinquents are out there committing crimes, dropping out of school, and having kids of their own. Less crime, and a richer, more educated society are good for everybody. So the state of marriage affects everybody.
The Regnerus study has many obvious flaws, but it is the best study done to date by leaps and bounds. Gay people are only 3% of the population, and gay parents are a small subset of that. Thus to do a longitudinal study of the offspring of gay parents, is nearly impossible. Regnerus got the largest sample anyone has ever put together and he reported the results fairly. It is not definitive, but it is at least scientific unlike, all the other evidence which tends to be anecdotal.
They do no such thing. They show a trend towards more single-parenthood in general, regardless of SSM being legal.
If you look at the countries represented in the table and divide them into SSM and non-SSM you get this trend for single-parenthood:
SSM countries 1990(-ish) –> 14.5%*
SSM countries 2008(-ish) –> 20.25%
non-SSM countries 1990(-ish) –> 14.8%
non-SSM countries 2008(-ish) –> 21.5%
The trend is exactly the same for countries legalising SSM as it is for countries who didn’t.
The flaws being, as has been pointed out in this thread, that he compares apples and oranges. Pretty much invalidates the whole thing, regardless of whether or not there is anything beter.
*Nb for Sweden I took the average between the years 1985/95 as they didn’t have anything close enough to 1990.
Even assuming your statement that “the statistics bear out your argument” was true - it obviously isn’t - that’s a meaningless assertion. You can’t point to any reason why legalization of same-sex marriages might affect the overall marriage rate. All you have is a vague correlation (assuming, for the sake of argument, that you do actually have that).
I presume you’re not seriously proposing that SSM makes opposite-sex marriages uncool or something.
