Taken from Huffington Post:
A poll conducted by the Des Moines Register finds that 92% of Iowans believe that "gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."
This leads me to believe that 92% weren't affected and 5% were happily married gays and the remaining 3% were crazies or administrative clerks who had to file more marriage licenses *gasp*
However, I should note that the poll found that Iowans were evenly split in their attitudes towards same-sex marriage.
I find this a bit troubling. This statistic suggests that people are against same-sex marriage even though they are unaffected by it. This means that their beliefs seek to impose a standard upon another set of humans even though they have no vested interest in the situation. They are a third party that limits the freedom of other humans with no real reason.
However, I should note that the poll found that Iowans were evenly split in their attitudes towards same-sex marriage.
I find this a bit troubling. This statistic suggests that people are against same-sex marriage even though they are unaffected by it. This means that their beliefs seek to impose a standard upon another set of humans even though they have no vested interest in the situation. They are a third party that limits the freedom of other humans with no real reason.
31 comments:
Lies, lies and more damn statistics or some such.
People love to misinterpret statistics which, themselves, depend upon the right questions being asked or parameters in the first place!
That said, if all was fair and right and true, then your conclusions are right and they do chime with what a lot of us who have been watching or working for gay rights think.
Some heterosexuals actively wish to oppress us and deny us rights which they have.
Well, now Iowa is not exactly known for a dense population other than California. I woud suggest a saying from prussian king Frierich II; tiefer haengen/hang it lower. Propz Pilgrim...P.S, France has these legal unions since 1997, and it is only a random thing even for the PPF, or rightwingers.
You have a very sound statement. This could be a short letter to the editor or something similar that can be published in the magazine.
Half the population is too busy listening to the local ayatollahs.
And some think Sarah Palin has no fan club outside Alaska...
That poll is ridiculous. It's way too soon for people to know what the long-term effects of this radical redefinition of marriage will be.
Come back in fifty years and ask the question, and maybe some preliminary, provisional answers will be possible.
Ah, statistics. That wonderful branch of mathematics that's more easily bent towards bias than people would like to admit. As one of my friend's professor remarked, "Torture data long enough and it'll confess to something."
I rather detest statistics sometimes. I was an epidemiology student in grad school - statistics was the foundation of our science. Yet, we learned so much about how statistics can be twisted by merely the word choice of the question. And when you read the literature and recognize the flaws, it makes one lament for the abuse.
Naturgesetz: As a challenge, what would you consider the long-term effects of this "radical redefinition?" I don't foresee it impacting heterosexuals in any way, other than them noticing that gays could and are married and that perhaps this would promote greater tolerance.
@ Aek — My basic point is that we cannot say it will have no effect, nor can we say what the effects will be if there are any. So I think it would be useless to get into a "No it won't"/"Yes it will" argument.
But it seems to me that the absolute removal of procreation as a purpose of marriage could well lead to a further decline in the birthrate among married heterosexual couples. That removal of purpose combined with the extension of the institution to a wider universe could make it (unconsciously) feel less special, which could lead to further declines in the rate of marriage among heterosexual couples. And the official removal of procreation from the purposes of marriage could lead to an increase in out-of-wedlock pregnancies as a percentage of all pregnancies. IOW, fewer children with a greater percentage of them being raised fatherless.
And there could also be the increased tolerance which you mention.
"official removal of procreation from the purposes of marriage"
Yet there is no current requirement for making babies in marriage law. One cannot "official[ly] remove" what is NOT FUCKING THERE.
Do you work for NARTH or Focus on the Family or something, ng? You certainly spout off bullshit talking points about the grave seriousness of same-sex marriage like professional homophobes and hate-mongers.
You wanna wait 50 years to see the impact of something you think should not be allowed? And how, exactly, do we guage the impact if it remains banned?
The notion that straight people are gonna pump out fewer babies if we can legally marry is absolute balderdash with no basis in anything other than scare tactics.
@ Mr. HCI — "So I think it would be useless to get into a 'No it won't'/'Yes it will' argument." And all the more useless when hate-filled name-calling is substituted for civil discussion.
I still say you don't know, I don't know, Jason doesn't know, don't none of us know.
@ Aek — I was afraid there would be that sort of overheated reaction, and that's why I wish you hadn't asked. But I didn't want to seem evasive, even though it would have been justified.
Civil discussion has gotten absolutely nowhere with you, ng. Furthermore, I called you no names in my comment. On the other hand, you did accuse me on my blog of being selfish for wanting equal rights. My answer to that remark remains the same, though I'll not repeat it here. You've also been quite condescending, both to me and others, repeatedly. Civil went out the door a long time ago.
You align yourself staunchly with our enemies; expect people to get angry.
Btw, if humans never did things because no one knew what would happen, we'd still be living in caves and foraging for food.
Let me just say that I LOVE the debate that has sprung up here.
I love controversy and intellectual debate, so as long as you guys continue to use concrete evidence, keep arguing.
That said, I intend to write a post on the matter, so you can bring the discussion to that one if you choose to do so.
This debate will not be over yet Jason.
I know for a fact that plans are already underway to have gay-marriage reversed and the ex-Republican governor plans to run again here in Iowa (I think).
One way or another given how Iowa acts I don't think Gay-marriage will hold BUT I didn't think America would vote for a Bush twice and an black guy as President so I hope to be wrong on this .
FWY I'm black so black or African American
I gave my comment and tha´s that. Propz Pilgtim
so ng u r opposed on theoretical moral grounds and to defend the common good as u see it... for dan and i being legally married to adopt an unwanted child maybe w/ special needs and love him or her rather that leave him in the foster care system that is a national disgrace?
It somehow harms society for us and other gay parents to provide love, stability, education, etc. cuz of what we do with our penises?
U are into natural law, right? Would not a logical extension of natural law approve of rescuing an unwanted child who needs a home cuz his mother did not believe in abortion? Is it not a dictate of nature for humans to have an instinct for love and compassion?
WWJD? Swoop down in a fit of divine wrath and undo all the gay families and toss the kids to the foster care wolves? Would he preach homilies and take up special collections to support Prop 1 in Maine?
The gospels say nothing about Jesus' stand on fags, but some can and do extrapolate some crap to use against us. Leave Paul out of it. If this was such an abomination wouldnt J have told us so?
Oh yeah, he reduced all the law to just two. 1.Love God, and 2.love each other as I have loved you!
If anyone wants to read the full article from the newspaper you can it's on my blog
http://ablackclosetcase.blogspot.com/2009/09/iowa-poll-iowans-evenly-divided-on-gay.html
"Comments are no good for debates."--Jason Carwin, Sept. 10, 2009
"I love controversy and intellectual debate, so as long as you guys use concrete evidence, keep arguing."--Jason Carwin, Sept. 22, 2009.
Does this constitute a change in your editorial policy? Are the intellectual gloves really off?
@ Steevo — Some solutions are better than others. We should take the best we can get. The law could allow adoptions by domestic partners. I think it already allows adoptions by single individuals, so either of you, as a legally single man, can adopt. Of course, it that does not make the other the parent if the adoptive parent dies. So it's less than perfect, from your point of view; but isn't it better than nothing?
I refuse to cut part of the New Testament away. Nor do I think that you can read a teaching into the absence of a saying by Jesus on the topic of homosexuality. One might as well say that his silence indicates that he had no problem with the common opinion of his time on the topic.
Love of God and love of neighbor aren't the *only* commandments. They're the *greatest* commandments.
While I understand your concern over what the New Testament says, I fail to see what it matters.
Marriage is just as much as civil institution as it is a religious one, and the civil side is governed by the United States of America, and the Constitution says that we have separation of Church and State (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)
AND, if gay marriage is legalized, then I believe that Churches should never be forced to perform a marriage that they believe is improper, so don't anyone give me that "it limits religious freedom" stuff.
@J I like debates, I just don't think that comments are the best place for them. The reason for this is that the format of a comments section makes a debate awkward. You have to scroll forever and it just is a bit unwieldy, but I suppose it's the best system we have.
Jason, that whole comment was a response to Steevo. He injected religion into the discussion when he wrote, "The gospels say nothing about Jesus' stand on fags, but some can and do extrapolate some crap to use against us. Leave Paul out of it. If this was such an abomination wouldnt J have told us so?" SO I was telling him why, if he wants to bring religion in, I won't leave Paul out of it, and why I don't think he can prove Jesus' position from silence. IOW, I don't think we can say, "Jesus wants gay marriage."
I agree that marriage is an institution which exists by nature, not a creation of church or state. Each has the ability to regulate it for its subjects, but they didn't create it. (But then, who created nature?)
It's kinda like the old saying about how much authority the British Parliament has. The saying was, "Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman." IMO the institution of marriage which exists by nature is heterosexual, for the reason Aristotle identified. And therefore I think neither church nor state has the ability to make a same-sex union a marriage, and calling it marriage is a misnomer.
I appreciate that you personally don't believe that churches should be coerced into performing marriages that they consider improper, but you aren't the United States. When large numbers of people decide that certain churches are denying them a civil right, your tolerance may not be shared by attorneys general and the courts (as there are already individuals who do not share it), and they may be successful in removing the tax exemption of organizations that do not recognize that civil right.
ng... your western/euro/ white centric reality leaves out many many human cultures... greek being one... that had very fluid concepts, traditions, and forms of human pairing and sexuality. Marriage as a catholic sacrament did not even exist prior to like 600 or later. 1 man 1 woman monogamous til death do us part standard is not even the dominant phenomena here today. Women were chattel. Is that by natural law?
I can see universals in that that all humans have lungs, sex organs, brains, feet, etc. As to cultural universals your type of marriage is in no way universal or even ancient. Did you study anthropology?
I wonder if u r bending natural law to support your distaste for what gay men do in bed to show their love or just have fun?
I note that u conveniently leave out my WWJD point!
I find it impossible to think that ng's opposition of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. He's made too many conflicting assertions for it not to be.
His basic argument:
Marriage is about generating progeny.
Yet:
Marriage should be open to opposite-sex couples who do not wish to raise children, as they have the proper genital configuration for making them.
Yet again:
Marriage should not be an option for same-sex couples, even if they are raising a family, because of their genitals.
Therefore:
Marriage rights should be accorded based on genitals and nothing else. The injection of children into the argument is a smoke screen and a poor one, at that.
The word marriage is related with the history. So the traditional western concept is one man with one woman.
Gay couples should get the same rights as heterosexual couples but I do not say it is important to call that marriage.
I do not understand why it is important to call it marriage.
RR
@ Steevo — WWJD is speculation, of course, but I think my take on it is that he would want the best available, which in some instances could be adoption by a gay parent living with a partner.
As for other relationships, polygamy and polyandry still involve a member of one sex married to people of the opposite sex. I've never heard that the male-male relationships of classical antiquity were marriages under their law.
@ Mr. HCI — but genitals are the things that are used in procreating children.
@anon: It is important to call it marriage because otherwise it will not have the same rights. Separate but equal has been proven to not work.
@ng: You've demonstrated, though, that the presence or absence of children is unimportant. Therefore, the genitals cannot be considered important if their sole role in the relationship is procreation. Legally penalizing people who are not attracted to people with opposing genitals is discrimination, pure and simple. And, yes, denying the right to marriage is a form of punishment.
concerning WWJD Jesus taught from the old testament and is clear there that 'marriage' as such was a union between a man and a woman.
To me this argument has everything to do with religion and religious value systems, and not a small amount of quixotic idealism.
If we finally separate church and state in this country, which is long overdue, the state will issue civil permits to those who want to enter a legal union, with all the rights and obligations that pertain to it. Thereafter the united couple can go to whatever holy man desire for "divine" blessing. What slays me about this argument is the investiture of the state of matrimony with all these moral and spiritual characteristics. To some couples it is, but most marriages end in divorce. If you've seen any divorce and equitable distribution proceedings you will realize that the sanctity of the whole thing went out the window a long time. So let gays get married. As Bill Maher noted, its about time gays had a chance to become as miserable as straight married people are.
Gays act as if this is some kind of a right of passage. That is a dangerous concept, because all to many marriages are entered into ill-advisedly, irrespective of the genders involved. And its obvious a lot of gays seek validation not just from the state, but also from mainstream religion. That tough sell should be kept strictly separate from the licensing issue.
Incidently, the ability of gays to be their own worst enemy in this public battle was never more eloquently described than in a post last week by the blogger baysailorboy@wordpress.com, who explains why he's gay but not queer. He is a precociously erudite and mature 19-year-old who used to post under another title until his cover was blown on campus. You guys ought to read
it.
Oops! That address is baysailorboy.wordpress.com
Thanks for that link, J. I read the post and it got me thinking about a lot of things. In fact, I just wrote 2 pages of notes and questions related to the topic. I need to think about it a lot more, and maybe I'll start posting my thoughts in a few days or weeks. We'll see.
Post a Comment