[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

Is it unfair for me to bring up the other parts of the same quote?

Not at all!

It's just that those other two parts don't deal with the impact on society as a whole of allowing a change to permit and condone gay marriage, they deal with the institution of marriage.

I'm pretty sure the same concerns were valid about other social movements in our country. Yes, it is going to fundamentally change our society if gays are allowed to "marry"; it is going to fundamentally change our society if they are allowed civil unions. It is going to fundamentally change society if gays are accepted and tolerated to the degree that I'm sure you agree they deserve. So what? Why does that prevent us from doing what is [i]morally right[i/], or at least morally consistent with American values in other areas (minority ethnic origins, minority sex)?

Most Americans consider gay marriage morally wrong.

By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%) legalizing gay marriage.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39

If you check the detailed reasons for these answers,



you'll find that almost all of the reasons are morally-based.

This is a thread regarding the road to the US Presidency. You support Obama, in part, because of his supporting that which you consider "morally right" regarding gay marriage. Your perspective is a minority view; most American voters consider that aspect of Obama's platform "morally wrong."

Given the increasing secularism in our country I see no reason that "marriage" has to perservere at all. I am married and I'm happy for it; but if one of the biggest schisms in our country is about religious-folks wanting to lay sole clame to the term "marriage", then I too can get a "union" or whatever. Marriage is a construct that has been represented in many different ways throughout history. It has been a mutual union of equal people, it has been an abusive, one-sided affair that has not been blessed or perfect. We have a long and varried relationship with marriage--also noted on the BBC page. Those who think it has been a static institution (sociologically) are uninformed. Marriage has looked different at different times.

The BBC website talks about all of that too. The stability of society has been challenged by much more earth shattering notions than allowing the small proportion of people who are gay to be "married". That said, I'm fine if civil unions are the limit.

Actually, the concept of marriage as anything but a pro-male one-sided affair is pretty new in the leading Western Democracies. Accepting emancipation and equal rights for women was a 20th Century experiment. The results aren't in yet, and they won't be until the generation born in the 1980's and sent to day care becomes our nation's leaders and we see how they do. That said, I support using human capital to its utmost utility, so I'm pragmatically glad that our nation undertook the experiment.

Gay marriage is another experiment. If you consider it risk-free, you're kidding yourself. My particular concern, the possibility of an excess of males versus females seeking heterosexual unions, is certainly a minority concern. (But you must admit that men can often be real jerks, making one wonder why women would want us. ) Others--many others--also have concerns.

The fear of change is not a viable reason to oppose something rooted in the rights of individuals in our country to share benefits...

Whoa. Where in the Bill of Rights is there a "Right to share benefits?" I want my bar buddy to share my excellent health care benefits, as well as my wife and children. Is that my right?

...or to visit each other in the hospital, etc.,. The same argument can be put forth that "marriage"--as a religiously based union between two people and god--is an outdated idea and that nobody can predict the enormity of our society's secular movement away from god and toward rigorous study to determine what is actually happening in our world. Given the work you have gone to to show "secular" perspectives on traditionally religiously based arguments, clearly you believe that secularism is, in some sense, here to stay. The consequences of THAT shift have been--and will continue to be--more significant than a spin-off change like gay marriage/civil unions has been. I don't read that you are concerned with the deliterious effects of moving away from fundamentalist religions, and it appears that much of your work and rigorous scholarship is predicated on that movement--at least insofar as you would not tolerate "my religion tells me it is right" as an excuse for a significant social belief or practice. The pragmatist in you moves beyond that without much difficulty, it seems. The unknown is not always bad, and it is not always damaging.

OK, maybe...but Obama must understand that few voters will view him as analytically as I do. At least I just question the effect of gay marriage generations later, balancing individuals' desires to take actions and their current happiness with the societal effects generations later. Others will view allowing gay marriage as anything from hedonistic to blasphemous to morally corrupt.

I do not propose a unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions.

W00t!

I believe appropriate accomodation should be made by companies that have the highest CO2 impact to address that impact. If those companies are not willing, and their CEOs are taking home hundreds of millions of dollars while spending millions to fight it, then I'm okay with unilateral action.

You're right. Everything I cited said that humans DID have an impact, but it is inconclusive how much impact. I would say that until you or I are experts on the subject--which neither of us are...

Are you sure?

...we will argue this forever because there is no clear cut answer.

So, you perceive that there's no clear-cut answer, so we should invest billions of dollars for that reason?

You tend to downplay it until there is absolute proof, I tend to assume that the sooner we start on fixing the problem the more likely we are to defeat it, and that we should at least think about what we can do to mitigate the problem.

If there's no clear-cut answer, there's no problem.

That was your approach with gay marriage, right? You aren't sure of what the social consequences might be but you're willing to look further into it before saying that you'll just let it happen. That's how I feel about this one, except that in this case "looking into it" requires a pretty significant investment. Of course, significant scientific investments have often proven beneficial for our country.

We're already funding significant scientific developments more than any other Western Democracy--they're defense-related. I'm glad that you applaud that.

Gay marriage allows individuals the freedom to do as they wish without government restriction. "Fixing Global Warming" restricts individuals' freedoms. I perceive a big difference.

If we figued out better ways to power our lives that do not require foreign oil then we would all be better off for it.

Such as the DoD-related fuel cell technology that's under development by major auto manufacturers?

Seriously, North America is becoming energy-independent through development of Canadian tar sands. What I perceive that you'd like is a US that uses some clean form of energy--nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, cold fusion, whatever--and I understand that.

But this all comes back to Obama's support for Global Warming. That's wrong. That's a liability, too: Obama, or any other candidate, can support liberty for all without wasting precious capital on a half-baked theory.

MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Example1, global warming is bad science. You and your favored candidates should drop support for it.

I can't wait for spring training so I can stop being the butt of everyone's political fervor!! :lol

You're not a butt, you're a good citizen. We need more like you, IMO.

More kinda like you who, hopefully, don't believe in global warming.