The Federalist Society debate on gay marriage

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh. John D. Lee, Nazi concentration camps, and fascism.

Part of me wonders why some of you continue to engage Waters.

I've noticed that SU hasn't posted today; probably because MW has hit all of SU's talking points for him. Brilliant tactic by MW to shut up SU.

[Archaea]

As the discussion participants note, the discussion boils down to two arenas, in terms of secular debate, normative issues and administrative issues.

What I find interesting is the argument that administrative issues elevate the "moral" need to change the societal norms.

The arguments in favor of it try to transform it into a great social issue with wide-ranging impact when it really has a narrow impact.

Administratively, a narrow subset of society, which if we use naturalistic arguments should remain relatively constant, and is relatively small, are denied a small set of administrative conveniences. This lack of administrative conveniences should operate to modify social norms? That doesn't sound very compelling.

Marriage is really passe for the most part and is usually convened to pay lip service to social norms, so why place a high premium upon those shadowlike norms any more?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Marriage is really passe for the most part and is usually convened to pay lip service to social norms, so why place a high premium upon those shadowlike norms any more?

Signed,
The First Presidency

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Signed,
The First Presidency

So I'm disagreeing with the First Presidency.

In today's world, marriage is irrelevant except among discreet minorities. It's waived like a traffic ticket and due to historical considerations receives some administrative conveniences in light of its perceived social benefits.

However, for groups who live outside the social norms to seek administrative conveniences and then couch the desire for administrative conveniences in terms of some primordial need or basic human right seems ludicrous and dishonest.

There is no basic human right to marriage. There is a basic human sex drive, for most of us directed at the opposite sex and for a discreet minority at the same gender. That's not the same as equating housing that drive within the organization of state sanctioned units, especially when alternative social units exist.

In secular language, the FP's position is indefensible in that sociological data has not be developed to support their hypothesis. Perhaps it could be developed, but the proponents of gay marriage are just as disengenous.

[MikeWaters]

The traditionalists will lose, primarily because they do not care as much as the gays and their supporters do.

To the avg. LDS in CA, gay marriage is distasteful and wrong, but it's not life and death important. To many gays, it is a raison d'etre.

Is the need for fairness a "primordial need." The need for just laws where people are equal under the law?

The funny thing is that all the predictions of the world becoming more evil after gay marriage comes will be "true". Just as year after year, the world has become more evil, it will continue to do so in these minds, actually, whether gay marriage is present or not. I guess the nuanced position is that gay marriage will make the world get more evil, EVEN FASTER.

Why are Mormons so dogmatically sure that global warming is not happening because the evidence isn't solid, yet they are all sure the world is getting more evil, one year after another!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The traditionalists will lose, primarily because they do not care as much as the gays and their supporters do.

To the avg. LDS in CA, gay marriage is distasteful and wrong, but it's not life and death important. To many gays, it is a raison d'etre.

Is the need for fairness a "primordial need." The need for just laws where people are equal under the law?

The funny thing is that all the predictions of the world becoming more evil after gay marriage comes will be "true". Just as year after year, the world has become more evil, it will continue to do so in these minds, actually, whether gay marriage is present or not. I guess the nuanced position is that gay marriage will make the world get more evil, EVEN FASTER.

Why are Mormons so dogmatically sure that global warming is not happening because the evidence isn't solid, yet they are all sure the world is getting more evil, one year after another!

The gays have more at stake so they will eventually win. But fuzzy concepts such as "fairness" really don't figure well into the calculus of the analysis. What's fair to one group is unfair to another.

Basic rights such being free or not free, being able to vote, being able to express themselves in terms of free speech, the right to have sex, and many other traditionally recognized rights. The right to administrative convenience for inheritance and insurance doesn't really inflame my passion. Gee let's go fall on a sword for that one. That's kinda murky gray, not black and white.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The right to administrative convenience for inheritance and insurance doesn't really inflame my passion. Gee let's go fall on a sword for that one. That's kinda murky gray, not black and white.

It inflames the church's passion, and has been described, supposedly, by the prophet as the church's "Gettysburg", that is, the most important battle ever fought in the war against evil.

Safe to say it inflame's someone's passion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It inflames the church's passion, and has been described, supposedly, by the prophet as the church's "Gettysburg", that is, the most important battle ever fought in the war against evil.

Safe to say it inflame's someone's passion.

It's such a clarion call, why are so many members so disinterested?

Gays who will profit from it, or at least they perceive they will profit from it, are passionate about it.

Those of us who wish to be left alone don't want it to cost us anything. If you could guarantee me it will not increase tax subsidies to "spouses" gays then I'd say, go for it, let gays enjoy the misery all straights enjoy in marriage. They should know what it's like to have spousal support and caustic divorces just like everyone else.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's such a clarion call, why are so many members so disinterested?

Gays who will profit from it, or at least they perceive they will profit from it, are passionate about it.

Those of us who wish to be left alone don't want it to cost us anything. If you could guarantee me it will not increase tax subsidies to "spouses" gays then I'd say, go for it, let gays enjoy the misery all straights enjoy in marriage. They should know what it's like to have spousal support and caustic divorces just like everyone else.

it will probably decrease benefits for gays, because domestic partnership benefits in many places will be canceled. Not married? No benefits for your partner.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it will probably decrease benefits for gays, because domestic partnership benefits in many places will be canceled. Not married? No benefits for your partner.

What percentage of states have domestic partnerships? I believe it's a distinct minority.