Chik-fil-A

[Diogenes]

That article is fairly clear about the dangers of confusing correlation with causation. Anyway, the issue is not whether homosexual couples would make perfect parents (they don't), but whether marriage creates a more stable environment for children to grow up in, even if the couple is homosexual. Thomas Sowell apparently thinks this point deserves no consideration. But the reality is that children aren't always brought up by both their biological parents.

And you have in mind a percentage of Children for whom this applies? What percentage might that be?

Hmmm... I often find it difficult to convey a complex idea, but the word "optimization" might get across the gist of it. People who are familiar with optimization realize that it is not the same thing as perfection. It is the weighing and adjusting of sometimes multiple factors to achieve the best balance that can be had given the competing influences.

With that in mind, I would argue that in a large statistical analysis of a given population, what has become the most common condition is very likely to be the optimized resultant of the competing vector forces.

Evolution works like that. Characteristics which aid in survival tend to be re-enforced. This concept works in social dynamics as well as with everything else. As water seeks the lowest level, so to do other dynamic social forces seek their own ground state. That ground state tends to be the optimized condition for the circumstances in which that society finds itself.

Evolution requires, and maintains, variation. There is no single optimum as there is no single set of circumstances that would apply to every individual. And as average circumstances change different traits become more or less dominant across the species.

With Humans sharing 99% of DNA with Apes, the term "variation" is subject to some degree of interpretation. Variation in human physiology and mental outlook is not nearly as wide as is the difference in physical characteristics between species. Depending on the scale, the variation between humans and their families can either be regarded as trivial or significant. The perspective from which I am arguing is that the functional necessities have very little variation, and deviation beyond a certain amount is off optimal.

It is axiomatic that biological parents have an evolutionary interest in the well being of their offspring. Looking into one's own children's faces and recognizing characteristics of self within in them should certainly be more inducive of protection and interest than a theoretical abstraction of a professed "concern" regarding some "generic" human child.

Were non-biological parents raising of children a functional methodology, it would have been manifested as a common practice by now. The fact that it was so rare prior to the last half century indicates that it is an artificial condition conjured up by our modern zeitgeist, and is only likely to be a viable system for so long as the current conditions persist. The occurrence of the biological parents raising their offspring is so ubiquitous throughout known history that it should be regarded as the optimal method.

Law need not mention gender at all. Judge people by their actions, not by their genetic makeup.

There are many laws which divide by gender. A woman can decide whether or not a man pays child support for a child he does not want regardless of his feelings on the subject. She can decide whether he has a child, or nothing. How do you not divide such a law by gender?

If absolutely necessary, divide by function or action. That way you automatically cover intersex cases as well as possible technical advancements such as artificial wombs.

Artificial wombs would clarify a great deal of pervasive illogical thought regarding what is a human and when should they be subject to legal protection. As when our evolutionary ancestors used to lay eggs, the distinction between one life and another was stark and clear.

Regardless, it is in the interest of Biological parents that their own genetic code continues in the future. In other types of "families", it really is ambivalent.

[Teahive]

That article is fairly clear about the dangers of confusing correlation with causation. Anyway, the issue is not whether homosexual couples would make perfect parents (they don't), but whether marriage creates a more stable environment for children to grow up in, even if the couple is homosexual. Thomas Sowell apparently thinks this point deserves no consideration. But the reality is that children aren't always brought up by both their biological parents.

And you have in mind a percentage of Children for whom this applies? What percentage might that be?

Where "this" means "not brought up by both biological parents", or "brought up by a homosexual couple"?
I'm fairly sure more than a quarter of children in the US are brought up by single parents. Apart from that, I don't have any particular numbers in mind.

Evolution works like that. Characteristics which aid in survival tend to be re-enforced. This concept works in social dynamics as well as with everything else. As water seeks the lowest level, so to do other dynamic social forces seek their own ground state. That ground state tends to be the optimized condition for the circumstances in which that society finds itself.

Evolution requires, and maintains, variation. There is no single optimum as there is no single set of circumstances that would apply to every individual. And as average circumstances change different traits become more or less dominant across the species.

With Humans sharing 99% of DNA with Apes, the term "variation" is subject to some degree of interpretation. Variation in human physiology and mental outlook is not nearly as wide as is the difference in physical characteristics between species. Depending on the scale, the variation between humans and their families can either be regarded as trivial or significant. The perspective from which I am arguing is that the functional necessities have very little variation, and deviation beyond a certain amount is off optimal.

Variations being small is a good reason not to treat differences in genetic makeup as dividing criteria in law. I wonder, how do you decide that a deviation is a priori "off optimal" given that evolution is an undirected process that is the sum of many cases where a sample of genetic code meets a set of circumstances, the latter arguably varying just as much as the former.

It is axiomatic that biological parents have an evolutionary interest in the well being of their offspring. Looking into one's own children's faces and recognizing characteristics of self within in them should certainly be more inducive of protection and interest than a theoretical abstraction of a professed "concern" regarding some "generic" human child.

Were non-biological parents raising of children a functional methodology, it would have been manifested as a common practice by now. The fact that it was so rare prior to the last half century indicates that it is an artificial condition conjured up by our modern zeitgeist, and is only likely to be a viable system for so long as the current conditions persist. The occurrence of the biological parents raising their offspring is so ubiquitous throughout known history that it should be regarded as the optimal method.

I don't recollect the argument being about forcibly taking away children from biological parents.
A trait or methodology can be functional yet remain relatively uncommon. Functional does not imply dominant.

[ANTIcarrot]

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wiki say:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Via the Lemon Test, laws which prohibit gay marriage are a clear first amendment violation, as it advances a strongly religious point of view. I also find it hard to imagine a 'secular purpose' that would stand up to any level of evidence-based critical review. Since no one has been able to do this, over the past twenty years or so, shouldn't this be the simplest decision in the world from a constitutional point of view?

[Diogenes]

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wiki say:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Via the Lemon Test, laws which prohibit gay marriage are a clear first amendment violation, as it advances a strongly religious point of view. I also find it hard to imagine a 'secular purpose' that would stand up to any level of evidence-based critical review. Since no one has been able to do this, over the past twenty years or so, shouldn't this be the simplest decision in the world from a constitutional point of view?

You have a common misunderstanding of what is meant by "*->Congress<-* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I'm not going to explain it to you either. If it isn't self evident, no amount of explaining will help. I will just point out that the Document (The U.S. Constitution itself) ends with the words "Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

I will also point out how ridiculous it is of your theory to not recognize this fact which absolutely contradicts it. Were I you, I would either work up a really swell rationalization to explain away the seeming dichotomy, or I would discard the theory for something which more closely approaches the historical reality.


As for "gay", during this era, the usual practice was to executed themwhen they were discovered. Thomas Jefferson himself proposed a law in Virginia to reduce the punishment to castration, thinking it more appropriate and more humane. Not sure i'd be wanting to argue constitutional intent when it comes to homosexual issues.

[Skipjack]

of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

Which is the english translation of "anno domini", a common way to establish that the christian calender is used and the date is not BC.

[seedload]

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wiki say:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Via the Lemon Test, laws which prohibit gay marriage are a clear first amendment violation, as it advances a strongly religious point of view. I also find it hard to imagine a 'secular purpose' that would stand up to any level of evidence-based critical review. Since no one has been able to do this, over the past twenty years or so, shouldn't this be the simplest decision in the world from a constitutional point of view?

I think your argument would be more suitable to ending the federal recognition of the religious institution of marriage then it would be to expanding its meaning.

[Diogenes]

of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

Which is the english translation of "anno domini", a common way to establish that the christian calender is used and the date is not BC.

Why an Austrian feels the urge to involve himself in a discussion of the correct meaning of the U.S. Constitution is peculiar to me. For someone who complains about the U.S.' meddling into other nations affairs, you certainly don't feel any inhibitions about doing it yourself.

The funny thing is, the "Year of OUR Lord" language was pretty universal on Legal Documents for most of this nation's existence. It is, on the face of it, a Tacit acknowledgement that the Spiritual Authority is regarded as superior by the Legal or State authority, and that the relationship between them is not neutral, as so many would currently argue, and as had the person's comment above so argued.

So here you are, trying to explain away the notion that the usage of such terms shows a special acknowledgement of the Christian religion and that the usage of such words is just a mundane secular habit of no seeming importance, and certainly not an indication of a preference for one religion over another by the Newly formed United States.

Then how do you explain the fact that several States maintained official state religions for long after the Constitution was written and ratified? One would think that if they founders meant what the secularists want to believe they meant, that such a thing as an official state religion would be absolutely prohibited, and yet they existed up to 1833 when Massachusetts finally rescinded the requirement.

Another troubling bit of information. How does one square the behavior of a state which mandates an "official" religion with the notion that the founders were completely secular? How does one deal with the fact that people were prosecuted for blasphemy in the 19th Century? How does one deal with the many and varied examples of blatant religious preference for the Christian religion being displayed repeatedly by both the State Governments AND the Federal government for all of the subsequent history?

The difference between an objective man and a subjective man is that an objective man will acknowledge facts of history which he doesn't want to believe, but must concede that it is true because he is honest. A Subjective man will attempt to force history to fit his own pet theory because he cannot stand the fact that his world view is wrong.

[seedload]

of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..."

Which is the english translation of "anno domini", a common way to establish that the christian calender is used and the date is not BC.

Why an Austrian feels the urge to involve himself in a discussion of the correct meaning of the U.S. Constitution is peculiar to me. For someone who complains about the U.S.' meddling into other nations affairs, you certainly don't feel any inhibitions about doing it yourself.

The funny thing is, the "Year of OUR Lord" language was pretty universal on Legal Documents for most of this nation's existence. It is, on the face of it, a Tacit acknowledgement that the Spiritual Authority is regarded as superior by the Legal or State authority, and that the relationship between them is not neutral, as so many would currently argue, and as had the person's comment above so argued.

So here you are, trying to explain away the notion that the usage of such terms shows a special acknowledgement of the Christian religion and that the usage of such words is just a mundane secular habit of no seeming importance, and certainly not an indication of a preference for one religion over another by the Newly formed United States.

Then how do you explain the fact that several States maintained official state religions for long after the Constitution was written and ratified? One would think that if they founders meant what the secularists want to believe they meant, that such a thing as an official state religion would be absolutely prohibited, and yet they existed up to 1833 when Massachusetts finally rescinded the requirement.

Another troubling bit of information. How does one square the behavior of a state which mandates an "official" religion with the notion that the founders were completely secular? How does one deal with the fact that people were prosecuted for blasphemy in the 19th Century? How does one deal with the many and varied examples of blatant religious preference for the Christian religion being displayed repeatedly by both the State Governments AND the Federal government for all of the subsequent history?

The difference between an objective man and a subjective man is that an objective man will acknowledge facts of history which he doesn't want to believe, but must concede that it is true because he is honest. A Subjective man will attempt to force history to fit his own pet theory because he cannot stand the fact that his world view is wrong.

The most remarkable thing about our Constitution is that it was ratified by Christians who were strong willed enough to recognize their Christian duty of tolerance to such as degree as to resist the urge to make this into a Christian nation. Remarkable men who respected others well enough not to form a government for or by a particular religion regardless of whether it was their own or not.

It takes nothing more than a simple internet search to find Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Payne and others saying exactly this.

The nobility of men that could resist being kings and lords as equally as they could resist being priests and evangelists is sorely lacking in today's politicians and followers that would care to call this a Christian nation for no other reason than to create moral justification for their own intolerance and hatred.

[GIThruster]

The nobility of men that could resist being kings and lords as equally as they could resist being priests and evangelists is sorely lacking in today's politicians and followers that would care to call this a Christian nation for no other reason than to create moral justification for their own intolerance and hatred.

Interesting to me that this sentiment pops up in discussion of the intolerance and hatred focused on Chic-Fil-A as result of their pro-family stance. Why is it okay to practice intolerance and hatred toward those who disagree with you, only if you're socially liberal, and never if you're socially conservative? This is all started because a public official decided to use the powers of state to ostracize a private company for their owners' convictions. Isn't it obvious both that this is a perfect example of intolerance, and that it is illegal for the state to so act?

[Diogenes]

The most remarkable thing about our Constitution is that it was ratified by Christians who were strong willed enough to recognize their Christian duty of tolerance to such as degree as to resist the urge to make this into a Christian nation. Remarkable men who respected others well enough not to form a government for or by a particular religion regardless of whether it was their own or not.

That is one way of characterizing what happened. Another, more accurate characterization would be to say that they cleverly avoided a possible future religious conflict by insisting on no official Federal Denomination of Christianity. They saw what had happened in Europe and intended to avoid it. That the Nation would be a default Christian culture was just a given in the zeitgeist of the time.

It takes nothing more than a simple internet search to find Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Payne and others saying exactly this.

And a man named David Barton has done exactly this, and the results are not what you think they are.


"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

The nobility of men that could resist being kings and lords as equally as they could resist being priests and evangelists is sorely lacking in today's politicians and followers that would care to call this a Christian nation for no other reason than to create moral justification for their own intolerance and hatred.

Yes, it cannot be because it is actually true, it must of course be only the result of their desire to be intolerant of others. Obviously all of the History which tends to prove that it is actually true must have been made up as part of some great conspiracy.

Lying to yourself is not going to fix the historical record to suit you.

[seedload]

It takes nothing more than a simple internet search to find Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Payne and others saying exactly this.

And a man named David Barton has done exactly this, and the results are not what you think they are.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

This is certainly another topic for which you have made up your mind about and there is no point in discussing further. I include the following for no other reason than "just 'cause".

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
- Jefferson

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
- Jefferson

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- Jefferson

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? "
- Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- Madison

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.... "
- John Adams

"In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States."
-Washington

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity."
- Paine

[Skipjack]

Why an Austrian feels the urge to involve himself in a discussion of the correct meaning of the U.S. Constitution is peculiar to me.

Ohhh, the ad hominem attacks again, always your favorite weapon in discussions...
Well, said Austrian is now a permanent resident of the US and as you know has been married to a US citizen for many years and he has a son who is a US citizen (and an Austrian citizen).
Many reasons to be feel an urge to involve himself.

[pbelter]

The Gay Marriage “problem” has nothing to do with gays or with marriage. It is really about having the government use the power of legislature to change the meaning of words. “Gay” no longer means what is used to either… Homosexual partnership is not an ordinary marriage in the way the word was always used and I don’t mean to criticize the concept, free people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their lives. Exploiting minorities or other small interest groups is a well knownstrategy of any left wing ideology to push their agenda of imposing more collectivism. Gay union has got to be a marriage because it is “more equal” than calling it something else.

In the US the founders put a very strong barrier to any authoritarian ambitions, and the letter of the Constitution cannot be easily changed, but what if the meaning of words in it can be? It always starts with small innocent things until people get used to it, then it goes further. Liberal used to be and adjective to describe free market economy. It still is outside of US but here it means something entirely opposite. If this continues, then in the land of Freedom there will be no room for ordinary freedom the way people always understood the meaning of the word.

[Diogenes]

Why an Austrian feels the urge to involve himself in a discussion of the correct meaning of the U.S. Constitution is peculiar to me.

Ohhh, the ad hominem attacks again, always your favorite weapon in discussions...

You regard being called an "Austrian" as an ad hominem attack? I did not realize you had such a low opinion of your country.

Well, said Austrian is now a permanent resident of the US and as you know has been married to a US citizen for many years and he has a son who is a US citizen (and an Austrian citizen).
Many reasons to be feel an urge to involve himself.

Hopefully he will grow up with a better understanding and appreciation of American principles than you have.

[Diogenes]

It takes nothing more than a simple internet search to find Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Payne and others saying exactly this.

And a man named David Barton has done exactly this, and the results are not what you think they are.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

This is certainly another topic for which you have made up your mind about and there is no point in discussing further.

Right back atcha dude.

I include the following for no other reason than "just 'cause".

You don't feel like discussing it, but you feel the need to put forth evidence which you believe supports your side?

- Jefferson

- Jefferson

- Jefferson

- Madison

- Madison

- John Adams

-Washington

- Paine

Madison had a great deal of input to the U.S. Constitution, and he is your best argument in support of your theory, but he is not sufficient to counter the other founders (and ratifiers in the State Legislatures) who have expressed an opinion contrary to his.


Jefferson was not involved in writing the U.S. Constitution. He had no input on it's creation. Paine was of course not a delegate either, and was despised in his later days for advocating his deist philosophy. John Adams expresses clearly the notion that the Government of the United States was by default Christian, you have just chosen to ignore such of his quotes which indicate this, and Washington has also expressed by written word and various deeds that he likewise regarded the Christian religion as the default condition of the national government.

As I pointed out, it's in the bloody document itself! I'll point out another example where evidence of Christian bias is written into the U.S. Constitution.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Now why would they do that? It is a tacit acknowledgement that the President cannot be compelled to work on the Christian day of Worship. It is just more proof that the founders legally regarded Christianity as the default culture of the United States.

You have two obvious allusions to Christianity written into the Founding document, and yet people are still trying to pretend that our founders were neutral on the subject?

There is SO MUCH evidence(besides the Constitutional references) which disputes this, that only someone who is ignorant of it's existence can credibly claim we were founded with a secular government. Once you actually look back at the historical record you discover quickly that this perspective was contrived in the last half of the 20th Century.