Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[wynnejj]

Nothing evasive. Human sexuality is core to personality. Some people believe that it should be allowed full expression for homosexuals. Others don’t think so. Those who do think so, consider it to be a human rights - civil rights - equality issue. Those who don’t think that do not see it that way. What is evasive about that? This issue goes to core values and won’t be resolved in this forum. Nobody is getting any points or winning a debate here. The disagreement is too fundamental and goes to the five genetic traits which determine in large measure how one’s moral system develops - what choices one makes in choosing a moral system. The field of moral psychology studies this.

Your argument about the five genetic traits which determine in large measure how one’s moral system develops and StFrancis response about societies naturally tending toward close approximation of a natural law & order created by God, reminds me of an argument that I proposed about God’s natural law & order will prevail in the absence of human law & religion regardless. It went something like this…

We have great power. We have the power to procreate, probably the greatest of our constructive powers. We have the power to kill, probably the greatest of our destructive powers. These powers are executed with very little effort. Just because you have the power to do something, doesn’t mean you should do it. With great power is great responsibility.

So let’s discuss talk about a real lack of choice.

If God does not exist, then laws are established to force a code of behavior, and religions are established to coerce a code of behavior. The concept of morality & sin is simply a set of man-made rules. Our animal brothers do not have this concept of morality & sin. They don’t articulate or codify rules. Yet our animal brothers are imbued with a set of hard-wired & codified DNA rules that have been naturally selected over the eons.

Take a wolf pack, for instance. What a family model! The family that preys together, stays together. Overpopulation due to limited food supply is a real problem. Competing dominant personalities in a hunting breed is a real problem. Concepts of morality & sin do not enter into their social behaviors. Natural selection, not free will choice, has actually given wolves some very noble social behaviors. For example, the overpopulation problem is resolved by the fact that only the alpha male & female couple have sexual relations and produce offspring. Lower ranking males & females tend to pair off & bond into lifelong monogamous platonic partnerships, protecting and caring for each other. Hard-wired dominant & submissive genetic variety among pack members has solved the issue of competing dominant personality conflicts. There are instinctive body language behaviors that communicate willingness to submit & comply. Hard-wired Omega dogs, no matter how big and capable they are, can be brow-beated into submission by a hard-wired Alpha pup with an attitude. Thus, there is hardly ever serious damage between pack members. Sex and eating privileges are enforced with imperious prejudice, but very little physical injury, through deterrent intimidation in a hierarchical manner enforced by the alpha male. Good behavior seems to be hard-wired into wolf packs, because prosperity follows ways and behaviors that simply work well toward prosperity.

The wolf pack ideal is the extrapolation of human society with or without the concept of morality & sin, because natural selection will rule in the development of human society. Would this be a viable free choice alternative in your opinion?

In a wolf pack, there is an hierarchical structure of authority. If control of births is necessary due to limited food resources, then most couples abstain from sexual activity and none produce & destroy young. It wouldn’t be such a bad deal if society would go to the dogs.

 

[tgrath]

You seem to be of the opinion that morality exists only inside people, that there is no morality except what people think?

Let’s flip this around: morality exists outside ourselves, and there is a true morality to which we adhere to greater or lesser amounts. I posit this because people who have had no exposure to Christian or Jewish thought on the matter have been able to come up with strong moral codes which look remarkably like the Christian moral code. Sure, there are deviations, but they are relatively minor. The big issues of morality exist in almost all societies throughout history. Courage, fortitude, humility, kindness, gratitude, justice–the main virtues are present.

Now, when a person “chooses” a moral system, then we have a bit of a problem. The moral system he chooses may deviate from the true morality posited above. But as a general rule, the moral system chosen will general emphasize his personal strengths and downplay his personal weaknesses. So somone who is very fearful, for example, may “choose” a moral system which downplays courage and emphasizes prudence.

Therefore, people who believe that morality exists outside ourselves have something to discuss. People who think that morality exists entirely within each person are incoherent because they have no way to explain why killing them would be immoral.

No, not at all. I believe that it is a synergy. People have certain traits which have evolved over time. Some of these traits have evolved in some animals too. For example, opposition to harm as a group, and taking care of each other. These are demonstrable traits which are independent of external morality. There are a number of these intrinsic values, if you will.

Moral Psychology studies this phenomenon. Where is the nexus between the internal programming, and the externally created system? Which of the external values does a given person decide to internalize? It turns out that there are a number of axes, or traits, which are common to specific types of people. Conservatives and more religious people tend on one direction on several of these. Liberals and less religious people (though they may consider themselves spiritual) tend to go toward other ends of these relative axes.

I do not think that morality is entirely of origin internal to the person. There is a propensity toward adopting certain values which is partly derived from internal drives though.

 

[stewstew03]

It wouldn’t be such a bad deal if society would go to the dogs.

Seems we’re headed that way…

 

[St_Francis]

No, not at all. I believe that it is a synergy. People have certain traits which have evolved over time. Some of these traits have evolved in some animals too. For example, opposition to harm as a group, and taking care of each other. These are demonstrable traits which are independent of external morality. There are a number of these intrinsic values, if you will.

Moral Psychology studies this phenomenon. Where is the nexus between the internal programming, and the externally created system? Which of the external values does a given person decide to internalize? It turns out that there are a number of axes, or traits, which are common to specific types of people. Conservatives and more religious people tend on one direction on several of these. Liberals and less religious people (though they may consider themselves spiritual) tend to go toward other ends of these relative axes.

I do not think that morality is entirely of origin internal to the person. There is a propensity toward adopting certain values which is partly derived from internal drives though.

If there is an external morality, it seems to me that the thing to do is to learn it, and to try to assimilate *all *of it. What you are describing seems from a Christian view to be allowing chaos.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Nothing evasive. Human sexuality is core to personality. Some people believe that it should be allowed full expression for homosexuals. Others don’t think so. Those who do think so, consider it to be a human rights - civil rights - equality issue. Those who don’t think that do not see it that way. What is evasive about that? This issue goes to core values and won’t be resolved in this forum. Nobody is getting any points or winning a debate here. The disagreement is too fundamental and goes to the five genetic traits which determine in large measure how one’s moral system develops - what choices one makes in choosing a moral system. The field of moral psychology studies this.

So, if a father’s sexuality is oriented towards his adult daughter and the daughter is also attracted to her father, the risk of pregnancy circumvented by contraception or permanent sterilization, and both act on full sexual expression, you would not have issues with that? If a class of people with such relationships surface and clamor for freedom to marry, would you consider that a civil right as well?

How about the types of personalities and those who share the social value of polyamorous and polygamous families. Such configuration has historical basis and these groups are predicted to move once gay ‘marriage’ becomes the law in every state in the name of equality. There is in fact such movement by groups advocating for the legalization of polygamy in Canada since gay ‘marriage’ was passed there. How would the states or the U.S. stave off not granting the same ‘civil right’ to marry to such groups, e.g., pockets of Mormons who still believe in it, as well as Muslim immigrants and their U.S. born children who grow up to be believers in men having up to four wives?

This thread is about social consequence of gay ‘marriage’ and you just ignored the arguments upthread that gay ‘marriage’ right is not a civil right. Instead, you segued to a discussion of moral development, which seems now to fall under the study of moral psychology, a very novel branch within the branch of psychology.

… I believe that it is a synergy. People have certain traits which have evolved over time. Some of these traits have evolved in some animals too. For example, opposition to harm as a group, and taking care of each other. These are demonstrable traits which are independent of external morality. There are a number of these intrinsic values, if you will.

Moral Psychology studies this phenomenon. Where is the nexus between the internal programming, and the externally created system? Which of the external values does a given person decide to internalize? It turns out that there are a number of axes, or traits, which are common to specific types of people. Conservatives and more religious people tend on one direction on several of these. Liberals and less religious people (though they may consider themselves spiritual) tend to go toward other ends of these relative axes.

I do not think that morality is entirely of origin internal to the person. There is a propensity toward adopting certain values which is partly derived from internal drives though.

How do you relate all what you posted above to the OP topic of social consequence of gay ‘marriage’?

As an episcopalian, I am not sure if you have heard of Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Catholic priest who holds a phD in psychology from Columbia University. I will share with you what he said about psychology as a discipline. He said that it does not know where it is going.
,

 

[tgrath]

So, if a father’s sexuality is oriented towards his adult daughter and the daughter is also attracted to her father, the risk of pregnancy circumvented by contraception or permanent sterilization, and both act on full sexual expression, you would not have issues with that? If a class of people with such relationships surface and clamor for freedom to marry, would you consider that a civil right as well?

How about the types of personalities and those who share the social value of polyamorous and polygamous families. Such configuration has historical basis and these groups are predicted to move once gay ‘marriage’ becomes the law in every state in the name of equality. There is in fact such movement by groups advocating for the legalization of polygamy in Canada since gay ‘marriage’ was passed there. How would the states or the U.S. stave off not granting the same ‘civil right’ to marry to such groups, e.g., pockets of Mormons who still believe in it, as well as Muslim immigrants and their U.S. born children who grow up to be believers in men having up to four wives?

This thread is about social consequence of gay ‘marriage’ and you just ignored the arguments upthread that gay ‘marriage’ right is not a civil right. Instead, you segued to a discussion of moral development, which seems now to fall under the study of moral psychology, a very novel branch within the branch of psychology.

How do you relate all what you posted above to the OP topic of social consequence of gay ‘marriage’?

As an episcopalian, I am not sure if you have heard of Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Catholic priest who holds a phD in psychology from Columbia University. I will share with you what he said about psychology as a discipline. He said that it does not know where it is going.
,

Wow. Where in the world did you get ANY of that from what I said?

In case I was misunderstood. The field of moral psychology studies the psychological bases of moral behavior. How you went from that to accusing me of defending sexual relations between a father and his daughter is a mystery to me.

This findings in this field relate to social consequences insofar as there appears to be a fundamental disconnection between people who fall at opposite ends of several of the identified axes or traits. This difference contributes to the rancor and strong emotion which sometimes enters discussions on this topic, as the opposing views are more than simple opinions.

 

[tgrath]

Your argument about the five genetic traits which determine in large measure how one’s moral system develops and StFrancis response about societies naturally tending toward close approximation of a natural law & order created by God, reminds me of an argument that I proposed about God’s natural law & order will prevail in the absence of human law & religion regardless. It went something like this…

In a wolf pack, there is an hierarchical structure of authority. If control of births is necessary due to limited food resources, then most couples abstain from sexual activity and none produce & destroy young. It wouldn’t be such a bad deal if society would go to the dogs.

Well, there appear to be some clear correlations. Causality is another matter. We also know that expression of genetic traits can be influenced by environmental factors.

 

[wynnejj]

Wow. Where in the world did you get ANY of that from what I said?

In case I was misunderstood. The field of moral psychology studies the psychological bases of moral behavior. How you went from that to accusing me of defending sexual relations between a father and his daughter is a mystery to me.

This findings in this field relate to social consequences insofar as there appears to be a fundamental disconnection between people who fall at opposite ends of several of the identified axes or traits. This difference contributes to the rancor and strong emotion which sometimes enters discussions on this topic, as the opposing views are more than simple opinions.

Having been clued in on something new to me, Moral Psychology, I searched the internet and came across the story of Marc Hauser, author of “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”, which I simply point out that shows that it is serious stuff (hence, called out for scientific misconduct) and it is a science that can fall prey to an agenda. So one has to forgive those who are defending morality in society when we suspect some scientist might be saying that we should always tolerate how we are hard-wired. From a theological perspective, though, there are aspects of our hard-wiring that were part of God’s intelligent design and part of aberrant hard-wiring that is due to bad copies resulting from original sin. Where there is aberrant hard-wiring, public policy should be dictated by a spirit of love towards the person with a disorder, not a spirit of promoting the spread of the disorder. It is a condition like any other “sick” condition, and both care and quarantine are the prescription.

Part of intelligent design includes the complementarity of man and woman. Man tends to be decision oriented and woman seem to be consensus seeking. It is true in society too, where conservatives complement liberals. Persons need to be developed with this complementarity, as do societies.

 

[tgrath]

Having been clued in on something new to me, Moral Psychology, I searched the internet and came across the story of Marc Hauser, author of “Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”, which I simply point out that shows that it is serious stuff (hence, called out for scientific misconduct) and it is a science that can fall prey to an agenda. So one has to forgive those who are defending morality in society when we suspect some scientist might be saying that we should always tolerate how we are hard-wired. From a theological perspective, though, there are aspects of our hard-wiring that were part of God’s intelligent design and part of aberrant hard-wiring that is due to bad copies resulting from original sin. Where there is aberrant hard-wiring, public policy should be dictated by a spirit of love towards the person with a disorder, not a spirit of promoting the spread of the disorder. It is a condition like any other “sick” condition, and both care and quarantine are the prescription.

Part of intelligent design includes the complementarity of man and woman. Man tends to be decision oriented and woman seem to be consensus seeking. It is true in society too, where conservatives complement liberals. Persons need to be developed with this complementarity, as do societies.

I did not speculate much on the origin of the probably universal moral tendencies or traits. Call it natural selection, as these “virtues” do promote the survival of the species. Call it evidence of Natural Law. Call it Intelligent Design. None of these, these or all of these.

Apropos to this thread topic, there are very clear social consequences resulting from the misfit between people who hold different moral views in the topic of gay marriage. It appears from this young discipline that particular traits coincide strongly with particular moral outlooks or frameworks, and who adopts which version of morality.

It has been known from psychology, anthropology, and sociology that there are basic moral tenets common to all societies regardless of religion. It is also speculated as to why various religious moral systems encode the same values. The social consequences of gay marriage resulting from these observations is that while it would ameliorate the unmet desire of gays and their supporters for marriage, that same social change will not be met with approbation any time soon from those who are wired at the opposite ends of three important indices. The question becomes one of core moral values and the intrinsic nature of marriage, as modulated by these intrinsic moral characteristics which we operate on in quite predictable ways.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Wow. Where in the world did you get ANY of that from what I said?

In case I was misunderstood. The field of moral psychology studies the psychological bases of moral behavior. How you went from that to accusing me of defending sexual relations between a father and his daughter is a mystery to me.

This findings in this field relate to social consequences insofar as there appears to be a fundamental disconnection between people who fall at opposite ends of several of the identified axes or traits. This difference contributes to the rancor and strong emotion which sometimes enters discussions on this topic, as the opposing views are more than simple opinions.

The incest and polygamy examples were posed as questions so you might address the arguments against gay ‘marriage,’ not accusations of other perceived ‘rights’ that you would defend.

As to where and how I got to raising the scenarios, look back to your previous posts that aver with seeming confidence but lacking in articulation.

The issue is sexual orientation. That is not rocket science. As basic as skin color or gender.

and

Human sexuality is core to personality. Some people believe that it should be allowed full expression for homosexuals. Others don’t think so. Those who do think so, consider it to be a human rights - civil rights - equality issue.

which clue the reader that your opinions are aligned, in short, with the gay ‘marriage’ advocates.

Then you brought up core values … and choice of moral system that follows moral perspective is developed, so that the individual reaches a personal moral code with which to live, via à vis society’s set of moral code(s).

I therefore asked you how it comes into the topic of the OP.

You can see that I was following your thought process.

Your subsequent posts explaining moral psychology are interesting; however does your discourse mean you in fact defend gay ‘marriage’ and that it’s social consequences are nothing to be concerned about?

 

[tgrath]

The incest and polygamy examples were posed as questions so you might address the arguments against gay ‘marriage,’ not accusations of other perceived ‘rights’ that you would defend.

As to where and how I got to raising the scenarios, look back to your previous posts that aver with seeming confidence but lacking in articulation.

and

which clue the reader that your opinions are aligned, in short, with the gay ‘marriage’ advocates.

Then you brought up core values … and choice of moral system that follows moral perspective is developed, so that the individual reaches a personal moral code with which to live, via à vis society’s set of moral code(s).

I therefore asked you how it comes into the topic of the OP.

You can see that I was following your thought process.

Your subsequent posts explaining moral psychology are interesting; however does your discourse mean you in fact defend gay ‘marriage’ and that it’s social consequences are nothing to be concerned about?

So, to follow your thought, you suggest that human sexuality is not a core personality component. All morality is of an external origin. Is that correct?

I was pretty much saying the opposite of that. Our sexual identity is core to our personal sense of self. Sexual orientation is an important part of it, as basic to sexual identity, as skin pigmentation is to skin. I also assert that there is sufficient evidence to believe that we are hard wired to accept certain moral principles or moral frameworks, and that these traits also coincide clearly with where people fall in this debate.

Further, I have not expressed my opinion on gay marriage anywhere. If my statements tend to support those who argue in favor of it, then the conclusion would be that the argument is backed up by the evidence in the field of study I mentioned. Don’t confuse that with the idea that I said that I support gay marriage, or that I have argued her for it, or against it.

Whether the reason that you misunderstood is my failure to articulate, or your failure to grasp some simple statements is irrelevant. Is it clear now, what I am saying?

Would you still ask me whether my statements support incest? Or am I still inarticulate to you?

 

[fix]

Our sexual identity is core to our personal sense of self. Sexual orientation is an important part of it, as basic to sexual identity, as skin pigmentation is to skin.

The question should be is such an orientation health or pathology? How are health and pathology defined?

I also assert that there is sufficient evidence to believe that we are hard wired to accept certain moral principles or moral frameworks, and that these traits also coincide clearly with where people fall in this debate.

How does free will fit in to this idea? How about reality? Are you claiming that how people view reality is “hard wired” too?

 

[wynnejj]

I did not speculate much on the origin of the probably universal moral tendencies or traits. Call it natural selection, as these “virtues” do promote the survival of the species. Call it evidence of Natural Law. Call it Intelligent Design. None of these, these or all of these.

It’s OK, you can say God, even when trying to be sexy, scientific & secular. You’re on CAF, we kinda like it. But not that last sentence. It broke my Venn Diagram program.

Apropos to this thread topic, there are very clear social consequences resulting from the misfit between people who hold different moral views in the topic of gay marriage. It appears from this young discipline that particular traits coincide strongly with particular moral outlooks or frameworks, and who adopts which version of morality.

I get it. People have different viewpoints. It may take awhile, but I’m integrating the data.

It has been known from psychology, anthropology, and sociology that there are basic moral tenets common to all societies regardless of religion. It is also speculated as to why various religious moral systems encode the same values. The social consequences of gay marriage resulting from these observations is that while it would ameliorate the unmet desire of gays and their supporters for marriage, that same social change will not be met with approbation any time soon from those who are wired at the opposite ends of three important indices. The question becomes one of core moral values and the intrinsic nature of marriage, as modulated by these intrinsic moral characteristics which we operate on in quite predictable ways.

My psychology, anthropology, and sociology tri-corder is a little rusty, and sometimes when I try to triangulate I have a little trouble telling what I have on each end of the three indices. However, I’ve got it working. Plugging the data in my Psychohistory program that predicts the course of future history based on the statistical psychological, anthropological and sociological factors, I have been able calculate with 99.99% accuracy that gay marriage will not be acceptable in the Catholic Church anytime soon - no wait, extrapolating … for all eternity.

(name removed by moderator)utting “None of these, these or all of these” data, it looks like there may be another outcome … dagnabit, it broke my Psychohistory program too.

…

Sorry, I can’t take this techno-babble seriously. This “Moral Psychology” is a little too much for me.

The Pope has triangulated on the Holy Trinity, and his prediction is simple:…
The consequences of legalization of gay marriage will confuse society, and most especially kids, about the institutions of marriage and family. The Church is morally obligated to prevent the State from going there.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

So, to follow your thought, you suggest that human sexuality is not a core personality component. All morality is of an external origin. Is that correct?

I was pretty much saying the opposite of that.

I agree that human sexuality is a core personality component.

Our sense of right and wrong has its origin in an internal law written in our hearts, from our respective faiths, as well as from what our history and humanity have imparted to us. It is the basis of positivist laws under which our society operate so we are not in perpetual war with each other.

Our sexual identity is core to our personal sense of self. Sexual orientation is an important part of it, as basic to sexual identity, as skin pigmentation is to skin.

I can understand if you are not conflating the issue of sexuality / sexual orientation being important to sense of self to said construct being used by those who erroneously claim that the gay ‘marriage’ movement is on the same plane, on the same principles, as the civil right struggle by African Americans in the 60’s.

I also assert that there is sufficient evidence to believe that we are hard wired to accept certain moral principles or moral frameworks, and that these traits also coincide clearly with where people fall in this debate.

A novel concept, part of a new field in psychology? Since opinions abound here, my take to what you just asserted is that even if such a theory will have future subscribers, it will not negate the law that God wrote in our hearts. Not saying all Christians or non-Christians have been accepting of this belief.

Further, I have not expressed my opinion on gay marriage anywhere. If my statements tend to support those who argue in favor of it, then the conclusion would be that Eethe argument is backed up by the evidence in the field of study I mentioned. Don’t confuse that with the idea that I said that I support gay marriage, or that I have argued her for it, or against it.

Whether the reason that you misunderstood is my failure to articulate, or your failure to grasp some simple statements is irrelevant. Is it clear now, what I am saying?

Would you still ask me whether my statements support incest? Or am I still inarticulate to you?

No, you did not say if you are for or against gay ‘marriage.’ I am asking you now, so please do not sidestep or evade the question.

If you will just re-insist that

This issue goes to core values and won’t be resolved in this forum. Nobody is getting any points or winning a debate here. The disagreement is too fundamental …

We can just forget this circular debate. If you deign to answer directly that yes, you support gay ‘marriage’ and that its social consequences are not for us to worry about, we can visit how arguments square with the equivalent or same reasoning of people of other sexual predilections or orientations.

Thank you for engaging me.
,

 

[tgrath]

The question should be is such an orientation health or pathology? How are health and pathology defined?

How does free will fit in to this idea? How about reality? Are you claiming that how people view reality is “hard wired” too?

Yes. Medical experts make this assessment. The definitions of pathology change with time. If you are referring to homosexuality, it was one considered pathological 50 years ago. There are many conditions which have changed over time in this way.

You have free will to adopt any religious or moral system. Which system will appeal to you or “make sense” to you is quite measurable along some of the traits studied in Moral Psychology. Not as a perfect predictor. But close. I bring it up because it is one way of looking at the differences here. Not THE definitive way.

As I have repeated a couple of times. It is a synergy between our “hard wiring” and our environment, how we see that world. There appears to be much more to the hard wiring than was once thought. This is a new field of study. Nothing is definitive.

 

[tgrath]

I agree that human sexuality is a core personality component.

Our sense of right and wrong has its origin in an internal law written in our hearts, from our respective faiths, as well as from what our history and humanity have imparted to us. It is the basis of positivist laws under which our society operate so we are not in perpetual war with each other.

I can understand if you are not conflating the issue of sexuality / sexual orientation being important to sense of self to said construct being used by those who erroneously claim that the gay ‘marriage’ movement is on the same plane, on the same principles, as the civil right struggle by African Americans in the 60’s.

A novel concept, part of a new field in psychology? Since opinions abound here, my take to what you just asserted is that even if such a theory will have future subscribers, it will not negate the law that God wrote in our hearts. Not saying all Christians or non-Christians have been accepting of this belief.

No, you did not say if you are for or against gay ‘marriage.’ I am asking you now, so please do not sidestep or evade the question.

If you will just re-insist that

We can just forget this circular debate. If you deign to answer directly that yes, you support gay ‘marriage’ and that its social consequences are not for us to worry about, we can visit how arguments square with the equivalent or same reasoning of people of other sexual predilections or orientations.

Thank you for engaging me.
,

No. I don’t insist that we forget the debate. But the debate only interests me from the point of view of someone who is interested in the social ramifications. I don’t see that the sky is falling where gay marriage is legal. It seems that life is as usual. I am not a Catholic. I don’t see homosexual behavior as a grave sin. I believe, as the medical community believes (with a religious minority dissenting) that homosexuality is not unhealthy. I have seen enough evidence that I don’t believe that homosexuals make worse parents than heterosexuals.

I would not campaign for gay marriage. I would not campaign for the preservation of heterosexual marriage as the only alternative. If two candidates where identical in character and views, other than their stance on gay marriage, I would probably vote with the candidate in favor of it. I guess that says something.

I believe that times are changing, and we will see gay marriage in the US within my lifetime. I have no idea wether that will be within 10 years or within 30 years. If I were opposed to it, I don’t think that my opposition would change much. Maybe that is why I seem indifferent to you. I am indifferent in feeling that the trajectory is inescapable. DADT and the President coming out with his opinion are not small indicators. They are landmark turning points in our social evolution. For personal reasons, I was interested in what Gen. Peter Pace had to say when he chaired the Joint Chiefs. To go from his solid opposition of repeal, to the repeal of DADT in such a short time, suggests an increasing momentum to me.

These comments are all germane to the topic of this thread. I am in a rush and only skimmed your comments. I will look at them again, and reply more directly

 

[Publisher]

No. I don’t insist that we forget the debate. But the debate only interests me from the point of view of someone who is interested in the social ramifications. I don’t see that the sky is falling where gay marriage is legal. It seems that life is as usual. I am not a Catholic. I don’t see homosexual behavior as a grave sin. I believe, as the medical community believes (with a religious minority dissenting) that homosexuality is not unhealthy. I have seen enough evidence that I don’t believe that homosexuals make worse parents than heterosexuals.

I would not campaign for gay marriage. I would not campaign for the preservation of heterosexual marriage as the only alternative. If two candidates where identical in character and views, other than their stance on gay marriage, I would probably vote with the candidate in favor of it. I guess that says something.

I believe that times are changing, and we will see gay marriage in the US within my lifetime. I have no idea wether that will be within 10 years or within 30 years. If I were opposed to it, I don’t think that my opposition would change much. Maybe that is why I seem indifferent to you. I am indifferent in feeling that the trajectory is inescapable. DADT and the President coming out with his opinion are not small indicators. They are landmark turning points in our social evolution. For personal reasons, I was interested in what Gen. Peter Pace had to say when he chaired the Joint Chiefs. To go from his solid opposition of repeal, to the repeal of DADT in such a short time, suggests an increasing momentum to me.

These comments are all germane to the topic of this thread. I am in a rush and only skimmed your comments. I will look at them again, and reply more directly

I agree with you friend…that a sitting President of the US would come out in favor of same sex marriage is a HUGE indicator that our society is changing to more inclusive…same sex marriage and relationships is no long spoken of in hushed tones…our society is coming to an understanding that marital equality is a good thing…despite the religious minorities in our nation decrying the “fall of civilization” and the “destruction of marriage” are becoming more and more…nonsensical…and our nation is beginning to realize “the sky is falling” tactic…just has no meaning for most people any longer…most of us know gay couples…gay couples with children…and their lives are stable…their children happy and well adjusted…it just isn’t the “apocalypse” the conservative religious groups make it out to be after all…the conservative religious “warnings” are losing credibility…slowly but surely…WE HAVE A SITTING PRESIDENT that came out in favor of same sex marriage…THAT IS HUGE!!!

 

[wynnejj]

An article supposedly about moral psychology and different poles in politics, touching upon the gay marriage topics…

Interview: Jonathan Haidt on Social Conservatives, New Atheists and Civility in Politics

CP: We’ve had a good example this past week with the arguments over the gay marriage question. When you see the gay marriage debate taking place, what do you see through the lens of moral psychology?

Haidt: When it emerged in the 1990s, it was very heated, very emotional and, of course, it still is. Here, I’m just reading an editorial on [ChristianPost.com], “The Battle for Marriage: Imagination, Culture and Politics,” by Eric Metaxas, who, I think, is correct in saying there has been an enormous change with shows like “Will and Grace” that made people comfortable with homosexuality and has removed a lot of the emotional impact.

My colleagues and I at YourMorals.org, a website where we collect a lot of data, found that feelings of disgust do play a significant role in people’s attitudes about homosexuality and gay marriage over and above their political identification. So anything that reduces the disgust is going to reduce the opposition to it. I think that has been happening. I think the historical trend is clearly increasing emotional acceptance and, therefore, increasing political acceptance.

CP: You’re saying that gay marriage is becoming more acceptable because of that emotional acceptance that needed to come first?

Haidt: That’s right. One of the three principles in my book is that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning comes second. Twenty years ago, most people had some visceral emotion to homosexuality. I have evidence that liberals more so than others will ignore their disgust. Liberals will say, “that’s kind of gross, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” Liberals distrust their disgust. Conservatives go with it more often. For example, the somewhat conservative philosopher Leon Kass has a famous phrase, “the wisdom of repugnance.” So, feelings of repugnance come first and then they often drive our reasoning. If the repugnance lessens over time then the reasoning will change too.

 

[jsaldar]

I think it will be one of the worst mistakes that the U.S can make. The worst part of this is that it will be happening. I am sure that it will be happening because it’s all leading to that. Our country is becoming less moral and more secular by the minute.

The greatest impact will be to the youth. They will be taught from school that this is completely normal. There will be more kids adopted by these gay couples. More TV programs showing Married gay couples because it would sell. We all know that the gay marriage issue is all politics and money and in the end money prevails in our imperfect nature.

It is sad to see what is happening. People are fighting for gay marriage but where are those that are fighting against it. I don’t see them. Everybody is giving in to the pressure from the government and those in favor.

It’s sad.

 

[Publisher]

An article supposedly about moral psychology and different poles in politics, touching upon the gay marriage topics…

Interview: Jonathan Haidt on Social Conservatives, New Atheists and Civility in Politics

Many people when they find out a loved one…or close friend is gay have a very deep “kick” to their belief system…they know these people…they love these people…the preconceived prejudices and viceral reactions lessen…they begin seeing these people not as “gay people”…but simply as people…those who know gay couples with children find out there isn’t too much difference between the “gay families” and “straight families”…those who have gay relationships and significant others when we as straight people get to know them as REAL PEOPLE…we find their relationships struggles isn’t too much different than our own…they become “normal” in our eyes…and some of us change.

Last night I was watching “How I Met Your Mother”…the couple who just had the child…they were discussing a play date…and a reference was made that no matter who their son loved…girl…boy or WHO EVER…the couple would NEVER stop loving their son…our society is changing…we are becoming more informed…we are learning to know these people and their struggles…we are becoming compassionate and more understanding of diversity.

Things are changing…I’m 57 years old…I never in my wildest dreams thought when I was 28 that gay people would one day be able to marry each other…it’s a reality in many countries and states in our own nation…AND IT IS BEING DISCUSSED…OUR PRESIDENT HAS “COME OUT” so to speak in favor of same sex marriage…as has our VP…congresspeople…doctors…lawyers…we are learning to speak to gay people…learn about their lives…share our struggles with them…as they share their struggles…and we’re finding as a society…theres not much of a difference.