Not completely on topic but might as well leave this here: largest study of it's kind confirms strong link between homophobia and closeted homosexual desire
http://www.feelguide.com/2011/06/16/...xual-impulses/

As unfortunate as it is, a result like this is not particularly surprising. It seems there is a never ending list of anti-gay politicians and activists who end up being gay and often rather amusing reveals. Mainly I feel sad for the self hating gay, but it should be recognized that for many this may well be the product of a society and a religion which imbues the idea that being gay is somehow wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...e-gay-marriage

Indeed and besides Illinois it passed in the Rhode Island House last month. And in the UK's house of commons. And France's National assembly. And of course the monstrous 4/4 success in the general election in the US. Heck even our little leadership race in Ontario Canada nominated the first lesbian prime minister.

The momentum is huge, even if all the court cases fail completely.

What is so damaging in the Illinois case for the "support equal rights, just don't want the name marriage for it, gotta change the name!" folks is that civil unions passed in Illinois and that didn't kill the momentum. People didn't get to this close but no cigar stage and give up. They were able to use that momentum and build on it and push for full equality, not equality with a bunch of policy differences and change the name. For anyone who thought that civil unions was going to be this much more palatable middle group and that would pass but full equality would stall, this should be a wake up call.

So this is both concerning and heartening

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...elsh-secretary

Welsh secretary criticised for speaking against gay couples raising children
Tory MP David Jones says same-sex couples cannot provide 'warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children'

It's obviously a concern that someone in his position would speak with that level of ignorance but it's heartening that he got called on it. It's also interesting that this bigotry is newsworthy.

Well that was the whole thing with the original topic of this thread, like why was this news or get the enormous amount of attention it got? I suppose it is some mark of success of the movement that now we have this kind of zero tolerance policy where such homophobia from a political leader gets instance condemnation in news coverage.

Btw I liked this comment (albeit not a direct quote) in the washington blade in the illinois prevote debate I can't imagine the suffering wedding businesses will be put through by having more customers

Iirc there was a case in the UK where a B&B owner was sued because the refused to offer a room to a same sex couple.

And a similar one in Canada last year that got quite a bit of prominence: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1687757.html

As cute as senator's righteous stand for the rights of homophobic people to be homophobic is, the irony of worrying about the adverse affects to the wedding industry of having more weddings is pretty awesome

Recent events on the gay marriage context seem to justify a bump. Last year in this thread one argument made was a tactical one. Namely, if we accept the need to end the discriminatory status quo, is it better to take the current trajectory of pushing for government sanctioned marriages, or to try and go an alternative route of getting the government out of marriage entirely (which results in a similar place of no official discrimination). I was arguing that given the enormous momentum behind the former path and its successes in the US, that should be preferred.

Since that argument, we first saw 4/4 big wins at the ballot box last november. The early part of this year experienced a tidal wave of US senators (and other political heavyweights) flip to favouring gay marriage, record high poll numbers, and just now both Rhode Island and Delaware legalizing gay marriage with Minnesota just today approving a huge vote that makes it close to a lock there, which will take us to 12 states with gay marriage vs just 6 when the argument occurred. I feel there is hardly any better signs of the sheer strength of momentum behind gay marriage could have occurred.

I have yet to hear a single convincing secular reason against SSM (and I have looked), it is basically just a matter of how long will it take for SSM to be passed nationally and in every state. Some will take longer than others, but it is a given that it will happen.

What continues to baffle and frustrate me are the courtrooms and other political centers that continue to entertain elected officials spouting off bible verses and religious opinions on this secular matter as if they had any relevance whatsoever.


eta: Look at the pics in this article after SSM was passed in RI. The sheer bliss on the faces of those who had previously been denied secular marriage just makes me smile. How anyone can look at the joy in these people and continue to think negatively about allowing their marriages to take place, I will never fully understand.

This is a great video of SSM being passed in NZ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilMBLV3A6ug

I've also yet to hear any convincing reason against SSM

Nice:up: This is a great example of the power of photojournalism incidentally and how powerful it can be for winning arguments. What picture can opponents possibly put up to counter that?

There are a few different secular arguments against SSM, the most common of which is pushing for civil unions. It is usually some combination of a tactical argument (civil union is easier to get than SSM, and isn't much worse) and a "it doesn't harm those who think SSM is sinful gotta think about them" type argument. But no, none that is convincing

...so, when's New Mexico going to quit straddling the fence?

Just do a google search on "secular case against gay marriage" there are plenty of papers out there.

Oh, but I guess you've read them all, and dismissed everything they had to say.

Carry on.

Have you ever heard a single convincing argument for common descent? There's lots of papers out there, etc....

universal common descent? No.

point taken, ha.

In fact I did just do such a search. As expected, I was familiar with every element I encountered (there is not an endless list of reaons, only a small number of general topics really). The majority still end up as religious beliefs and 'morals' wrapped in transparent secular commentary, so I won't even consider these as valid secular reasons. Of the remainder, I listed some highlights below. Perhaps you could tell me what you think are the strongest secular reasons against SSM? I don't expect you to change your mind about anything though, so it might be pointless. But perhaps I'm wrong?

Here's some of my quick thoughts:


-Marriage already has restrictions
-Marriage is costly to the state
-Marriage results in families, families grows society, a growing society helps the state.
-Slippery slope
-Majority rules


Restrictions / slippery slope Each element of secular marriage stands or fails on its own merits. Allowing SSM does not make any alternative marriage option stronger OR weaker. The massively complicated problems that polygamous marriages could end up in are not diminished, marriage to children (or pets....ffs) do not suddenly become capable of making informed consensual decisions, etc.

Families Let's jump right in: Why are marriages between non-child-bearing senior citizens permitted? Is it because they are so rare that its not worth the bother, as some have stated? Just how many is 'rare', and how does that number compare to the number of anticipated SSM's? As for not being worth the bother, how much 'bother' is limiting marriage to those under 50? Under 60? Whatever number you want to pick... It's no bother at all, so why would it not happen? BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE AN OUTRAGE, that's why!!! Why are families consisting solely of natural children brought up at all in the discussion of secular SSM? There is no secular definition of marriage that specifies 'bearing natural offspring' to be a necessary component. In any case, state benefits are not uniform, they depend on the couples financial and family situation; benefits given to a married couple without children are not the same as to a married couple with children. If you don't have children, you don't receive state benefits for having children.

Cost to State Whether the state should provide benefits to married couples is a valid question. But it's a completely different question. Also, it's interesting that the anti-equality side points out how costly marriage is, but that marriage is also beneficial to society by growth / producing families, despite that this growing society will recursively produce even more child-generating marriages - hadn't it just been pointed out how costly marriage was to the state? Even if you accept that growing society is a benefit to the state, then in what other way would SSM couples serve an interest to the state? It doesn't matter. Why? Because there is no secular definition of marriage that specifies 'serving the states interest' to be a necessary component. Maybe it should, but that is itself wrapped up in the other question mentioned above, whether the state should be involved in marriage at all, and the question of how useful each marriage is to the state can be leveled at every individual marriage.

Majority Rules Fortunately, protecting minorities is the essence of the US Cconstitution, and at the very heart of what it means to be American, even if those suggesting it have never had a civics or history lesson.


There continue to be these incredible suggested reasons such as society will gradually disappear after SSM is permitted, or the value of each couples marriage is somehow dependant on every other couples marriage, and other ideas that I am unable to grasp, and I doubt the proponents can reasonably support themselves.


These are just some quick thoughts, the only argument of any merit is whether secular marriage should even exist. But while it does, it cannot be discriminatory without secular reasons.


Whether people or business can be bigoted and discriminatory is another topic I have partly mixed feelings about (I have some slightly Libertarian leanings sometimes, if someone wants to be a dick, should they be forced not to be a dick?), but while there are laws in place to prevent such discrimination, they should be upheld.


eta: ianal, I might not have written this up brilliantly, and I certainly don't want to regurgitate any old and dead discussion, and I have a feeling I might have done just this. So I will say that I am not interested in getting into any further petty discussion (I would really like to hear anything well-reasoned I have not thought of though).

One can cite studies on both sides of the issue, but I don't believe for a second that children raised by homosexuals (in general) are as well-adjusted as those raised by a mother and a father.

But your studies all suck, and most of what you believe about homosexuals just isn't true.

Btw, do you think it's better for a kid to be raised by a homosexual couple or a single parent? I'm curious to know if you think that the homosexuality actually takes away from the home environment such that a single straight person is superior to 2 gay ones (in terms of raising kids).

Minnesota confirmed

"But your studies all suck"

You've got to be really twisted if you think that a child isn't better off being raised by it's biological mother and father (in general), than two homosexuals.

I definitely think it's better for a kid to be raised by a single parent than a homosexual couple.

BTW, fun reading right here:

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-st...vious-research

Can't wait to hear the weak responses to UT Prof. Regnerus...

"Oh don't you know Regnerus was debunked... blah blah blah"

Could you explain how? Having a whole extra person seems hard to overcome.

Well I have to run to work now, but I'm sure that if the FRC published it, we can trust that it's objective and doesn't have a huge anti-gay bias.

Also, as someone else pointed out somewhere on 2+2, this 'best for the children' is a terrible metric for deciding on which marriages to allow. Should we not allow poor people to wed if we prove that wealthier kids do better? Would you be willing to accept ONLY gay marriages if hypothetically they proved superior?

What the over/under on how many states allow gay marriage before Aaron concedes?