The Beef on abortion, gay rights, and religion

[spunkloaf]

Why do the oppositions to these issues always appear to be religiously motivated; and why do people get so offended by them?


I would like to know if there is any statistical data which proves that abortion and gay marriage rights are bad for this country--without any religious speculation, since religion has nothing to do with the government.


It seems all I have ever heard, without any gain of intelligence, is that "A marriage is "intended" for a man and woman" or that a gay marriage is illegitimate because they cannot produce a child.

Nothing in that gives me any reason to oppose gay marriage.  It's all moral religious stuff, which should be left for individuals to decide if it is right or not--not a country.




So, can somebody provide some sense here?  A clue perhaps?  What's the beef?  Why do I feel like a crazy person living in a country full of crazier people?

(I am trying to be funny.  I am not trying to hurt anybody's feelings.  This is not intended to trash people's beliefs.  This is intended to get FACTS.  Please take no offense--as there appears to be no right or wrong answer to these issues)

[SDML]

I'm not the best to answer those questions. Perhaps some of the traditional conservative voices 'round here can improve on my answer.

Marriage, as an institution, binds not only a man and a woman (ONE man and ONE woman, Mr. Romney!), but society as a whole. Historically, it is the best framework within which to build a strong family with well-adjusted individuals. To allow any other type of marriage (same-sex marriage, multiple wife marriages, multiple husband marriages, open marriages, other polyamory arrangements, etc.) is to tear at the very fabric of traditional society. The repercussions of such actions are difficult to predict, but it is can be assumed that those repercussions will be negative.

Abortion is taking a life, pure and simple. Taking a life without due process (an embryo cannot commit a child, and so no due process is needed) is criminal, pure and simple. The only exception is when the odds of trading one life for another (that is, if the mother's life is in danger should she carry an infant to term).

Did I get that about right, guys?

All that said, I don't embrace either of the above views.

[SDML]

Note the above responses in no way rely on religious belief. The sole reason religion is often tied to these issues is because religion more often than not condones the traditions of society (in the case of marriage) and embraces the "thou shalt not kill" doctrine (abortion) in one way or another.

Plenty of non-religious people agree with conservative values, too.

[Peter1469]

It looks about right to me. 

Social scientists have shown that the “nuclear” family (one man, one woman, and kids) is the best way to raise the next generation of productive members of society.  This doesn’t mean that those from broken or alternative homes cannot succeed, but the statistics are drastically against them.

With that said, I am not sure that if the State recognizes gay marriage that there will be a lot of changes with the view of traditional marriage.  Perhaps it will over time.   

[SDML]

It's worth noting that no marriage license was required, and the state (by and large) was not involved in the issue of marriage, until after the Civil War. Marriage licenses were originally issued to prevent, discourage, or at least track inter-racial unions.

Early marriage law included bans against polygamy (the first federal level law concerning marriage, if I am not mistaken, and signed into law by Lincoln - it's a felony), cohabitation if the relationship was thought to be "polygamous", inter-racial marriage, use of contraception in marriage, married woman owning property, and similar.

The shift in recent history, of course, has been primarily against same-sex unions, but we continue to criminalize polygamy. We gave up, of course, on trying to outlaw inter-racial marriage, female ownership of property, use of contraception, and the like.

The US did not become Rome due to abandonment of issues of property or race, and our success or failure does not turn on the issue of same-sex or polygamous unions. In short, Big Bro does not need to be involved at the local, state, or federal level with the institution of marriage - at all.

Critics of this view cry that same-sex or polygamous marriage is an attempt to legitimize a lifestyle (presumably, homosexual or polyamory are in some way un-natural or wrong, despite the biological & historical evidence to the contrary), to which I counter that marriage law in general is nothing but an attempt by the state to control the lives of individuals. One squashes the attempt of legitimization best not by controlling behavior, but by removing state involvement.

[Peter1469]

I certainly agree with you.   

[spunkloaf]

This just pisses me off.

I need to calm down before I rebut.


Wait, I will say one thing right now.  I'm glad that these will not be issues in the far future because people are  slowly realizing what is right, and what is just nonsense.

[Vermouth]

It looks about right to me. 

Social scientists have shown that the “nuclear” family (one man, one woman, and kids) is the best way to raise the next generation of productive members of society.  This doesn’t mean that those from broken or alternative homes cannot succeed, but the statistics are drastically against them.

With that said, I am not sure that if the State recognizes gay marriage that there will be a lot of changes with the view of traditional marriage.  Perhaps it will over time.   

I don't think many studies have been done on children raised by homosexual couples.

[SDML]

What pisses you off?

[Peter1469]

It looks about right to me. 

Social scientists have shown that the “nuclear” family (one man, one woman, and kids) is the best way to raise the next generation of productive members of society.  This doesn’t mean that those from broken or alternative homes cannot succeed, but the statistics are drastically against them.

With that said, I am not sure that if the State recognizes gay marriage that there will be a lot of changes with the view of traditional marriage.  Perhaps it will over time.   

I don't think many studies have been done on children raised by homosexual couples.

Probably not- the studies focused on the traditional marriage model to broken homes.  I doubt that there were many homosexual couples with children to throw into the studies. 

[spunkloaf]

It looks about right to me. 

Social scientists have shown that the “nuclear” family (one man, one woman, and kids) is the best way to raise the next generation of productive members of society.  This doesn’t mean that those from broken or alternative homes cannot succeed, but the statistics are drastically against them.

With that said, I am not sure that if the State recognizes gay marriage that there will be a lot of changes with the view of traditional marriage.  Perhaps it will over time.   

I don't think many studies have been done on children raised by homosexual couples.

Why would they?
This nation is trying to prove that homosexuals are UNFIT to raise a child, and a realistic study would thwart that.

[Peter1469]

I have not heard of many such studies- probably because homosexual couples historically have not been able to adopt in most states.  Here is a current NYT article on a study that started in the 1970s.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E3DE1339F934A35752C0A960958260

However, this study does not discuss how well the children turned out, but whether they turned out to be gay or not. 

[spunkloaf]

How nice to see a piece of truth surface.

People assume so much yet they know so little.

[Peter1469]

What do you mean?

[spunkloaf]

I mean that people will automatically assume that a child raised by a gay couple will grow up to be gay.

It was not an attack on you, sorry.