« HBD, the stupidity of crowds, and the Efficient Market Hypothesis | Main | Nerdiness and mainstream psychology »

August 03, 2012

Comments

If Bezos was, at any time, not a big government Leftist, he is now. In addition to supporting gay marriage he has been agitating for the government to impose taxes on internet transactions, because Amazon is now big enough that such a tax would hurt his smaller competitors far more than it would hurt him.

In any event, the local CFA was jam-packed on Wednesday.

I think the gays overstepped a little on the Chik-Fil-A incident. Most people I've spoken with other than those on the extreme left seem to be supportive of Cathy's right to do as he pleases with his money.

I don't think this is going to sink their cause in the long run but the news story was probably a net negative for the gay lobby.

Gay people are completely unreasonable on the whole gay marriage thing. They don't want to push it through the legal process so much as ram it through the courts. Apparently if you aren't for gay marriage, you're homophobic and want to beat up queers. They think it's perfectly ok for the government to threaten a business that has the audacity to donate to foundations that support traditional marriage and fail to realize they're the bullies. 2-3 years ago I was 100% for gay marriage, now I'm fairly indifferent in terms of the policy but I'd get some schadenfreude watching the gay marriage lobby suffer.

I like most gay dudes I know, I consider myself straight (maybe a little bisexual).

I worked as a go go dancer in several gay clubs after I graduated from school, and was barely making $14 an hour doing data entry during the day.

Every night I danced, I would get offers from men older than my dad to come home with them, and probably half of the time when I was approached by 40+ year old men, they were with their partner. It's routine, expected, for gay men in a relationship to stray, or to invite a third (or fourth or fifth). How many straight married couples, or those in a long term relationship, do this? Only the 5% of the straight population into poly/swinging, probably.

Gays are not monogamous. Maybe lesbians want, and are capable of, 'marriage', a lasting relationship between two persons, but for 99.4% of gays, this is just a political stance, and a way to 'stick it' in the eyes of the yokels, the conservative Christians, etc. Gays are very egocentric and emotional.

I don't think gay marriage will ruin the nation, but when we see those YouTube videos with smiling, gray-haired men talking about their devotion to their 'partner' of 25 years, they never mention all the anonymous club hookups, Grindr booty calls, and so on, that they have both participated in while still remaining a couple. Very disingenuous! I really think straight people would be shocked at the amount of no-strings-attached casual sex/hook ups (not to mention rampant use of club drugs/steroids) that goes on in the gay community, as well as the blasé attitude many gay men have about the dangers of HIV.

All those percentages are just pulled off the top of my head, so no need to fact check them.

Double standard? Only if you're a white conservative.

Louis Farrakhan just opened a restaurant in Chicago but Rahm Emanuel banned CFA. Farrakhan's on videotape advocating death for guys.

And the Democrats are always very chummy with rappers like Ludacris or Jay-Z, both of whom have performed at official Democratic campaign events. Both of them have used the term "faggot" quite a bit.

"On the other hand... is not going to destroy society"


And you know that because? Yeah, you dont. You are projecting a possible future based on very little data.

What happens when society's structure is weakened to the point where the US is like the UK and instead of marriage their is a "partner"- who may be around for a while and may drift off. Whats the long term impact of single/state parented children giving rise to another generation and another? We have no idea.

We have no idea what will happen because societies like that disintegrate. Boring WASP values didnt come out of nowhere. They are the results of centuries of societal evolution. Civilization with out structure and long term orientation required by marriage collapse.

The gay marriage divide is more of a class divide than right-left divide. Pretty much all wealthy people, including conservatives, are in favor of or neutral on gay marriage. In fact, elites have been tolerant of homosexuality for most of human history. The Russian nobility in pre-revolutionary Russia, the elites in 15th century Italy, British elites in the Victorian era, etc. etc. Plenty of Democrating voting lower class people are not fans of gay marriage, or gays in general.

I don't give a button about gay marriage, but if eating chicken sandwiches from the heretics' shop gave The Left a punch on the snoot, I'd do it.

A few comments about Amazon v. Chik-Fil-A:

- There was a news story a year or so back about sweatshop conditions in Amazon's warehouses. That seems to have dropped down the memory hole. Maybe it's more important that its chief is a fan of gay marriage.

- CFA appreciation day wasn't just a red state thing. There's one in the food court at the Garden State Plaza mall in Paramus, NJ, and according to the NY Post, there were hour-long lines there on Wednesday. Amazing what can happen when you allow Americans to make a cultural/political identity statement by eating fast food.

- Not sure if you've seen it yet, but the CFO of a medical equipment company took a video of himself ordering a free water from CFA and then berating the girl working the drive through about gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPLNgkP9nzc&feature=youtu.be

He was axed by his company the next day. As someone in the comments on YouTube wrote, that was an expensive free water.

There is no double standard. If someone campaigned to end Christian marriage, there would be plenty of outrage. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin anyone's heterosexual marriage and anyone claiming that it does comes across as either delusional (fearing that acceptance of homosexuality is going to spread it wide) or hateful (being so disgusted with homosexuality that the mere association feels harmful to marriage).

There is no way to oppose gay marriage without coming across as someone who just wants to be mean to gay people out of sheer enjoyment of being mean. And in the end, even people who do not like homosexuality will not want to side with people who see nothing wrong with going on TV being all proud about their eagerness to be mean to a minority. Conservatives cannot win this.

The right wing should dump value campaigners who want to focus on lost causes like gay marriage. There is nothing to gain from pandering to these people (after all, they're not going to vote for the left) and every time you attach yourself to a pointless non-issue that won't matter at all you hand a victory to the other side on issues that actually matter.

I think you may be focusing on the wrong thing here, Sigma. Same-sex marriage has become the Great Righteous Cause of our time according to the Left. A comparison between Cathy and Bezos isn't reason for the Left to consider a double standard, because none exists to them. Pro-SSM is a valid opinion, and anti-SSM is not. Cathy, who publicly supports the anti-SSM position, is just as much a bigot to them as an anti-SSM person who otherwise keeps his opinion to himself and does nothing to materially advance the anti-SSM cause. Bezos, by giving public support to the pro-SSM side, is a hero to them. In fact, if he was pro-SSM but did not offer it public support, he'd likely be receiving criticism from the Left for what the Communists used to call being "insufficiently revolutionary".

Peter A said: "In fact, elites have been tolerant of homosexuality for most of human history. The Russian nobility in pre-revolutionary Russia, the elites in 15th century Italy, British elites in the Victorian era, etc. etc."

True as far as it goes. But tolerance of homosexuality is a lot different from redefining a millenia-old institution so a few sexual deviants can play house. Those nobles you mention may have let some eccentric aristocrats and some youthful indiscretions slide, but they would never have imagined giving formal, legal recognition to so-called gay marriage.

"There is no way to oppose gay marriage without coming across as someone who just wants to be mean to gay people out of sheer enjoyment of being mean."

That is asinine. It is not "mean" to uphold traditional marriage and oppose gay marriage on the grounds that the former is morally proper and socially positive while the latter is not.

"this is just a political stance, and a way to 'stick it' in the eyes of the yokels, the conservative Christians, etc."


In the early '90's, at Boalt Hall in Berkeley, I saw a poster titled, "The Gay Agenda." It was on hot pink construction paper, and listed ten items written in that sparkly stuff little girls put on their faces. Item #10 read, "TO TURN WESTERN CIVILIZATION INSIDE OUT!"

Matt in RTP,

Yes, I think most people that know a little about the gay community know few gays actually want to get married. They just want to raise the social status of gays by getting a "government approved" stamp on their lifestyle. That is why most people don't think its the holocaust or something.

DaveinHackensack,

Wonderful. Yes, it's all about rich people with boring lives finding something to give them meaning (generally bullying around poor workers). It's further amazing that probably one of the most humane of all the fast food companies which treats its working poor the best of all its competitors is being attacked over some shit that doesn't matter.

jaakkeli,

It's the opposite really. Most people aren't for or against gay marriage. Gays are a single digit portion of the population and most of them don't want to get married. Those that do can more or less do it they just don't get a government stamp of approval. When you threaten someone like Chick-Fil-A over something like this it causes a backlash.

People are really worried about marriage, but they can't articular or fight the things threatening marriage (though those things are driven by the same impulse and interests groups as gay marriage). So they fight that which they can see, even if its way off the mark.

"no way to oppose gay marriage without coming across as someone who just wants to be mean to gay people out of sheer enjoyment of being mean. "

What if you think that marriage serves a social function, like the police department. The function of the police department is to prevent the breaking of the law. The function of marriage is to prevent the problems that result from the production of children. No meaness required.

"There is no way to oppose gay marriage without coming across as someone who just wants to be mean to gay people out of sheer enjoyment of being mean."

There is a breathtaking amount of ignorance about what traditional marriage actually is. It is NOT a right, per se. On the contrary, you give up rights when you get married. You give up the right of free (sexual) association. You give up the right of freedom of movement. You give up property rights. A marriage contract is an agreement between two parties to GIVE UP THESE RIGHTS as not just a indicator of, but a legally enforceable commitment to each other, the purpose of which being to provide a stable home for children. The state is willing to expend resourcse to enforce the contract because it, in turn, expects the marriage to be more conducive to raising law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. In order for the state to have these expectations, the individuals have to meet certain basic requirements, including being of the appropriate gender. Homosexuals have no more "right" to marriage than a lawyer has to a medical license.

Obviously, no-fault divorce has already undermined the purpose of marriage. Gay marriage would simple do so a bit more.

Scott: "Gay people are completely unreasonable on the whole gay marriage thing. They don't want to push it through the legal process so much as ram it through the courts."

Oh no, it's almost as if we're talking about civil rights, equality, and the morally arbitrary discrimination. It's instructive that this is one of the few cases where conservatives see no problem with putting people's rights up to public vote.

"Civilization with out structure and long term orientation required by marriage collapse." Turambar

This sounds like an argument for gay-marriage. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (austrian economist at UNLV) got in a lot of trouble for suggesting that gays have shorter time horizons because they tend not to have kids, but rates of gay families are going up and this also seems like a good thing as it could stretch time horizons. Whats the alternative, to try and actively shut gays out of the economy so money doesn't flow to people with short time horizons. I'm guessing this would be a net loss.

I am opposed to same-sex 'marriage' because it is a pure Orwellian fiction, and if our government honors falsehood as truth, our government is not worthy of respect.

The whole point for the state to be involved in the marriage debate is because men and women procreate and bring forth future generations. Gender-free marriage has no basis in biology

If SSM is held as the law of the land, gay "marriage" will continue to be a fiction. I will hold my government in scorn from that point onward, for embracing fiction with the force of law.

The point of SSM is to make conventional religion unacceptable in polite company. The bible begins with God creating men and women for the purpose of coming together, after all. If conventional religion is made unacceptible in polite company and you end up with the much less religious society you see in Europe, things move very far to the left, and very far toward pathetic impotence. The religious right has been the spine and backbone of the conservative party in the US. Without the religious right, you get the worthless conservatism of Europe.

Religion is not some relic. Societies almost invariably decay without some sturdy form of it, and the castrated version you see in the Episcopal church is the very definition of decay.

If SSM sidelines religion in polite society, look for significant declines across society.

@ jaakkeli

You're argument can be summed up in one sentence -- "If you disagree with me then you're a 'hater'."

Well, let's see here. I'm on record on a number of blogs sympathizing with homosexuals. I think they should receive the SAME rights and protections everyone else receives.

Not less. Not more. Not special. But the SAME.

In no way could I possibly be said to hate people who do it. Yet you've decided to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a "hater".

Well... I DISAGREE WITH YOU.

Since when is government in charge of marriage? Any other time, the same crowd who is demanding SSM would be demanding separation of church and state and for the government to get out of people's private lives. But on this ONE ISSUE they want to use the government to force their opinion on a majority who doesn't want it.

Don't get me wrong. If homos want to perform a ritual then I certainly don't think they should be prohibited from doing so. But I don't think special interests should hijack the govt in order to legitimize it.

I know what you're going to say... that if the govt recognizes marriage for one then it should recognize marriage for all. Oh, yeah? Should the govt recognize polygamy, too? How about group marriage? There are already organizations who are starting to push for both of those. Would you support legalizing polygamy and group marriage? Maybe not today but in a few years you would. Or perhaps the next generation will after its been raised on propaganda telling them that anyone who doesn't support it is a "hater".

But let's get to the real basis for the govt taking any interest in marriage at all. And that is to provide stable families for procreation. That's it. That is the state's only compelling interest in marriage. And since homosexuals DO NOT PROCREATE the govt has no compelling interest in this issue.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

"That is asinine. It is not "mean" to uphold traditional marriage and oppose gay marriage on the grounds that the former is morally proper and socially positive while the latter is not."

So, for example, most Christians would not find it mean if a billionaire opposed Christian marriages on the grounds that they're not morally proper and socially positive and spent a lot of money on a campaign to annul the marriage of anyone who had a church wedding?

You might say "preposterous! no one thinks Christian marriages are improper!" but hey, there are plenty of people in Afganistan who think Christianity is morally improper enough that any Christian priest marrying a local couple has to fear for his life. There aren't that many Christians interested in fighting Islamic institutions the same way which is why we all consider Islam the mean, intolerant religion of those two even though the PC police prevents us from saying it aloud.

Similarily, there are a few but very few queer activists actually wishing to change traditional marriage while some traditionalists are fighting to block gay people from doing something that won't actually affect them in any way... so, to those of us who don't really care much about the issue it's clear that the traditionalists are the pointlessly mean side in this and in the end neutral people will side with the ones who do not come across as negative and hostile.

PS the radical left *used* to fight against marriage rather seriously - check out the Communist Manifesto for starters. That battle is pretty much over now and they lost. Being hysterical about "defending traditional marriage" this day is really, really silly.

"The gay marriage divide is more of a class divide than right-left divide. Pretty much all wealthy people, including conservatives, are in favor of or neutral on gay marriage. In fact, elites have been tolerant of homosexuality for most of human history. The Russian nobility in pre-revolutionary Russia, the elites in 15th century Italy, British elites in the Victorian era, etc. etc."


Take a close examination of the historical periods you cited. Things did not end well for those societies as they became morally lax. The Russian nobles were dangerously out of touch. After the 15th century Italy lost it's Renaissance prominence. Italian corruption spread to the church which likely contributed to the protestant reformation. British decadence left them dangerously unprepared for WW1 which was the beginning of the end for their empire. The elites cannot embrace morally degeneracy without consequence. We're seeing that now.

jaakeli -

"There is no double standard. If someone campaigned to end Christian marriage, there would be plenty of outrage. Gay marriage isn't going to ruin anyone's heterosexual marriage and anyone claiming that it does comes across as either delusional (fearing that acceptance of homosexuality is going to spread it wide) or hateful (being so disgusted with homosexuality that the mere association feels harmful to marriage)."

Really? Did you forget how the law actually works?

Equality implies an equivalence. Not only must homosexuals be treated the same as heterosexuals, but heterosexuals must be treated the same as homosexuals. Once gays have the legal standing to marry, they will then have the legal standing to alter the laws as they see fit, especially through the courts. Any such legal changes must directly map to the marriage laws that underpin heterosexual marriages.

In other words, heterosexuals will be treated like homosexuals under the law. What would that entail?

Well, what is a feature of gaydom? Gays are very promiscuous and their relationships are essentially open. Gays will import their "open" relationships into their legal marriages. After all, why not? If openness was not a problem before they were married, then why would it be a problem after they were married? And if cheating is not an issue in the marriage because the gay couple did that before they were married, then why would it be an issue in, say, a divorce? What prevents a gay partner from arguing that his cheating on his spouse is inconsequential and should have no bearing on a divorce proceeding?

Poof...gay marriage has now introduced de facto polygamy into straight marriages by reducing the consequences of cheating. Remember, divorce is only no-fault when a party is initiating a separation. It is not no-fault when it comes to money. Fault matters when discussing child custody, alimony, child support, and assets. Cheating still determines whether a woman gets anything out of a divorce, especially if a man initiates divorce first. With gay marriage, women can cheat to their hearts content and never have to worry about getting called on it.

@ Matt in RTP

The institutionalization of homosexuality is dangerous and like your experience wherever it occurs it leads older men preying on younger boys. This has to be opposed for the sake of civilization. These Evangelical types may be the wrong sort of whites but they're correct even if they can't articulate why.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-consequences/

"Oh no, it's almost as if we're talking about civil rights, equality, and the morally arbitrary discrimination. It's instructive that this is one of the few cases where conservatives see no problem with putting people's rights up to public vote."

Civil Rights was put to a legislative vote, and won majorities in the House and Senate. The only gay marriage-related legislation I can think of at the federal level was the Defense of Marriage Act, which essentially banned it.

Chich-Fil-A is a business that recognizes HBD.

Chick-Fil-A is the only fast food I like, and I've gone to one on almost any long interstate trip. Here is what I found on my last one, which I've seen at pretty much each one I've visited.

1) They are located in white suburbs where they attract mostly white customers. They are therefore able to maintain a clean store and leave the condiments out for people to take as they need instead of hiding them behind the counter needing to request them because they are afraid of theft.

2) The employees are almost all white, usually teenagers. This is different from you average fast food place that is mostly blacks and mexicans. The staff is generally friendly, efficient, and not terrible to look at (unlike the obese freak shows at some fast food places).

3) They actually service you, including busing your table with a smile and getting you refills when it's not to busy.

4) The managers all where fresh pressed professional attire and ties. The manager at my place was a white dude. I've read that they have the best employee and manager retention rate in the business as a result of their practices (including Sundays off which the employees like).

Sounds to me like Chick-Fil-A recognizes and takes advantage of HBD.

Gay couples can't create children together, but that doesn't preclude them from providing a stable home. Is there reliable data proving that adopted children of gay couples do worse than adopted children of straight couples?

ROLF. Just saw the CFO that berated the Chick-Fil-A drive thru. It is about as hilarious as it gets.

http://screen.yahoo.com/cfo-fired-for-bullying-chick-fil-a-employee-30175693.html

"Since when is government in charge of marriage? Any other time, the same crowd who is demanding SSM would be demanding separation of church and state and for the government to get out of people's private lives. But on this ONE ISSUE they want to use the government to force their opinion on a majority who doesn't want it." destructure

I have long thought that the government should get out of marriage, and I still support that opinion for the long run, but there are so many laws treating married people different that this is almost impossible in the short run.

And this whole thing isn't about some ceremony as someone put it. It's about very real effects of over 1000 laws treating married people differently, including different laws for taxation. It's amazing how little play this gets. I think this plays to the rights sense of procedural justice to some extent (as opposed to appeals for social justice), but the left, who are the ones actively supporting SSM, don't believe the right has any sense of justice at all.

As for supporting the next generation, that might have been important when wars were won on body count, but the last thing anyone needs now is more people on this planet. The earth's population has quintupled in just over 100 years. We're full. At the least, I can't see subsidizing more kids.

If marriage were about "love" then the state would have no interest in creating a special status for it and encouraging it.

However the point of marriage is to create stable families. Since gays don't create families (at least not without outside help), there's no point in allowing gays to marry.

@Dan

"I am opposed to same-sex 'marriage' because it is a pure Orwellian fiction [...] Religion is not some relic. Societies almost invariably decay without some sturdy form of it, and the castrated version you see in the Episcopal church is the very definition of decay."

I don't understand conservatives who endorse religious thinking because it's useful social control. How about allowing people to think for themselves instead of feeding them magical bullshit? There's some accumulated wisdom in sacred texts and religious practices, but also a looot of nonsense.

@ Conquistador,

Yes, I was offered money, cars, apartments, my student loans paid of...if I would sleep with these older men. Many gays are predatory.

Still, I enjoyed worked as a go go dancer. Gay men, well, all men, I think, appreciate how hard it is to obtain a great body. Women don't. They think all men are gifted with washboard abs, 17 inch arms, and a V shaped torso, and only fat, lazy slobs deviate from the Hollywood idea (but it is SO HARD for them to put down the Haagen Daz because their job in public relations is so stressful, ya know)..

I also worked a couple of bachelorette parties. Ugh. 'Shrew' is really the best word to describe some of those women.

OT

Sigma, could you please post about gened free/accelerated degrees? Gened free 60-credit bachelor degrees will both make college cheaper and cripple leftist professors ability to make mischief because forcing undergrads to take the gened is how the left funds the liberal arts departments.

Scott Walker is setting up an accelerated undergrad program that will let any undergrad student test out of gened classes, and upper level classes.

Another event in the accelerated degree movement is MBAs are increasingly being offered in one year formats by prestigious business schools like Kellog. In one year MBA programs, students take fewer elective courses to finish their degree on time and are able to :

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/10/the-rise-of-the-one-year-mba/?section=magazines_fortune

Once you add in the lost income from quitting your job, the interest payments on student loans, and the ever-rising tuition and fees, the total cost of the degree can approach $350,000.

So at a time when applications to most two-year MBA programs are down, it's probably not all that surprising that there's renewed and growing interest in one-year programs. As Kate Smith, admissions director for Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, puts it, "The value proposition of the one year is great so there is high demand for it."

While overall MBA applications to Kellogg were down 7% last year, one-year applicants bucked the trend. They rose by 6% last year and are up 24% since 2009. This year, Kellogg has enrolled a record 100 students, up from 86 last year. Smith says the school plans to expand the class by 20% to 30% next year, bringing enrollment to as high as 130 students.

snip

In fact, several schools report that their one-year MBAs make slightly more than graduates of their traditional programs, largely the result of differences in work experience. At Kellogg, for example, one-year students are, on average, five months older with six months more work experience. So graduates tend to see a faster return-on-investment than traditional MBAs.

snip

Given the importance that MBA students attach to alumni networks, it's reassuring for one-year students to know that once they complete the core requirements, they will be integrated into classes with two-year students.

Goizueta emphasizes that come fall, one-year students, after an intensive summer of core courses, join second-year students in the two-year program, becoming one class that graduates together. The only differences are the lack of an internship and 10 required electives versus 14 for two-year students, says Corey Dortch, associate director of Goizueta's MBA program.

I agree with HS both that Gay Marriage is inevitable, and that it doesn't present a real threat to marriage. But the problem is that marriage is in big trouble in the West already. Gay Marriage isn't a cause, it's a symptom because we no longer take marriage seriously.

If you had told people 40 years ago that gay marriage would be a huge political issue hardly anyone would have believed it. The amount of political capital wasted on this silly boutique issue is absurd. We are running a big experiment to see if a society can function without families. Now, families are treated as just another lifestyle choice rather than the backbone of society. I suspect we'll have the results for this crazy experiment in our lifetimes, and I doubt the results will be pretty.

"the inevitable legalization of gay marriage . . .is not going to destroy society" -HS

No, but it will act as a catalyst.

(as evidenced by the fact that these initiatives usually fail at the ballot box).

No.

They ALWAYS fail, as in 100% fail, 0% successful.

Even NAM's aren't that stupid.

Even NAM's know that the damned tab A goes in slot B.

Even NAM's know where people come from.

The thing which worries me about gay marriage is that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships will be imported into the concept of marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Many-gay-couples-negotiate-open-relat...
(The above is a media write-up of a study that found that in a study of 566 gay couples, only 45 percent had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. This is an example of a different moral norm surrounding gay long-term relationships.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
(In the above link is a NYTimes piece arguing that homosexual marriage could modernise (that is import different norms into) marriage as an institution.), specifically; "The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages."

The importation of a moral norm like the one above surrounding gay long-term relationships would destroy the institution of marriage for heterosexuals who wish to pursue a long-term mating strategy. I don’t know many men who would sign up to an institution where the partners are expected/morally obliged to be emotionally faithful but not sexually faithful. It is much easier for women to get casual sex than men, so any man signing himself up to that deal would be signing himself up for cuckoldry and cuckoldry is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a man pursuing a long-term mating strategy, (and it is the evolved moral norms surrounding the long-term mating strategy which marriage as a cultural institution is/was developed around/for.)

Of course, if people became more knowledgeable about evo-bio/evo-psych and instead started calling marriage essentially what it is, the social-codification of the long-term mating strategy in humans, then this concern wouldn’t really matter. (No worrying about importing norms anti-thetical to the reproductive interests of one party in the relationship and subsequently which disincentivises the pursuit of the strategy from that party as its definition is strictly evo-bio/evo-psych.)

(On a side note, the reason I've given above is also why I think a lot of religious people are against gay marriage, they fear that it will change the institution and expose them to cuckoldry. This wouldn't be the first time that religious norms have been developed to prevent cuckoldry/ensure paternal certainty; see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uom-hrp060412.php

Of course, I doubt these fears will be allayed as doing so would go against the feminist establishments desire to create a matriarchial/matrilineal cad society where all men are cuckolds (if they aren't cads that is), but that's a whole different issue.)

Addendum:
More evidence of different moral norms surrounding homosexual relationships:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-cou...
see “In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.”

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918360903445962

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19243229

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20635246
This is the link to the actual study from the newspaper reports.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20069497
This one provides a good review of the literature. But it is pay-gated.

"there are plenty of people in Afganistan who think Christianity is morally improper enough that any Christian priest marrying a local couple has to fear for his life."

Ugh, it doesn't work that way. In Islamic countries marriages are civil only. Muslims don't get married in churches. They just register at their equivalent of the courthouse. Then the friends and family have a party. Christians in Muslim countries operate about the same way. Islam isn't as well organized as the Roman church was and its prayer leaders, theologians or whatever you want to call them never became administrative agents for the state like Roman priests etc. in the west.

I agree with map @ August 03, 2012 at 05:24 PM.

"Gay couples can't create children together, but that doesn't preclude them from providing a stable home. Is there reliable data proving that adopted children of gay couples do worse than adopted children of straight couples?"

Uh, yup. The data is embarrassingly bad. The MSM of course has no interest in honest reporting and or you would have heard about this by now:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2012/07/straight-vs-lesbian-families.html

If these were the figures for Christian families, they would have all lost custody by now.

@Bill, you may say that they aren't necessarily adopted, and it is possible that some may be with one biological parent, but of course all of offspring in that study are at least 50% adoptive if not 100%.

"I have long thought that the government should get out of marriage, and I still support that opinion for the long run, but there are so many laws treating married people different that this is almost impossible in the short run.

And this whole thing isn't about some ceremony as someone put it. It's about very real effects of over 1000 laws treating married people differently, including different laws for taxation."

Immigration, too. Same sex marriage would expand the scope for green card fraud.

"It's amazing how little play this gets."

Indeed. But why soberly consider consequences when the ~1% of gays who want to get married are being denied their civil right to do so?

"I don't think gay marriage will ruin the nation, but when we see those YouTube videos with smiling, gray-haired men talking about their devotion to their 'partner' of 25 years, they never mention all the anonymous club hookups, Grindr booty calls, and so on, that they have both participated in while still remaining a couple. Very disingenuous! I really think straight people would be shocked at the amount of no-strings-attached casual sex/hook ups (not to mention rampant use of club drugs/steroids) that goes on in the gay community, as well as the blasé attitude many gay men have about the dangers of HIV."


So true, yet into this situation adoptions are allowed.

I was reading an article about the death of Gore Vidal (didn't like him, just a pretentious, snotty, typical queen), and his contention that by the time he was 25, he had had at least a thousand sexual encounters.

You hear this a lot about gay males, and often it's said that the straight male would be promiscuous as the gay male were it not for the restraining effect of women, but while that does make a great deal of sense up to a point, it doesn't account for all the contrast between gay males and straight males.

Even the hunkiest alpha dogs in high school and college didn't have that many hook ups by the age of 25 even though women give it up very freely these days and even though prostitutes have always been available.

I've read that male homosexualityin many does indeed correlate with compulsivities and I am beginning to believe that whatever it is biologically that produces homosexuality might also produce problems with compulsions.

Peter said,
"In fact, elites have been tolerant of homosexuality for most of human history."

It's the conferring of normalcy to it through the institution of marriage that most oppose. One can be "tolerant" without believing gay marriage might ultimately have negative consequences on the institution.

Yes, it's a biologically occurring phenomenon, but it's maladaptive.

I wouldn't let a blind man drive but I don't have anything against the blind guy. And yes, the eyes were meant to see. That they don't means something went wrong.

Gays want to say nothing went wrong in their development just because gays exist. No, something went WRONG, biologically awry.

Just as gay marriage winds up being legal in most or all states, we will have discovered the biological cause of homosexuality, at least the male version, and we will prevent it before birth or in infancy....and little by little there will be fewer gays until one day people will read about men who weren't attracted to women and will say, "HUH?"

Of course, by then, marriage and family will be kaput anyway. We have reached the destruction of the family by replacing the father with the state--how is that any different than the worst totalitarian goal?

"Gay Marriage isn't a cause, it's a symptom because we no longer take marriage seriously."

Excellent point. That pretty much sums it up.

So far, those supporting SSM have given 5 arguments.

1 Gays want tax breaks.

2 Hate, civil rights, social justice, etc

3 Gays need SSM so they can adopt (AIDs infected kids from 3rd world countries)

4 Malthusian Catastrophe

5 Anti religious sentiment

Not one of those arguments addresses the very simple points that:

1 The state has a compelling interest in promoting procreation within stable families

2 Gays don't procreate so the state has no compelling interest in promoting SSM

3 No one is preventing gays from doing anything so there's no civil rights violation

***

I agree with lil mike that open homosexuality is more a symptom than a cause. Which is why I strongly disagree with jaakkeli's claim that the radical left lost their fight against marriage. How can anyone look at the rates of promiscuity, abortion, illegitimacy, adultery amd divorce and possibly conclude that marriage won?

I agree with tina that homosexuality is maladaptive. But radicals have adopted their disorder as an "ethnic" identity. Psychologists call this "egosyntonic". Instead, I recommend that homosexuals and their families both recognize it as a disorder and accept it as such. In exchange for homosexuals being discrete, non radical, non promiscuous, etc their families shouldn't ostracize them.

Homosexuality is correctly defined as a psychological disorder, and was only removed from the list for ideological reasons. From a bio-evolutionary perspective, the sole purpose of existence is reproduction. A homosexual is attempting to engage in the reproductive act with an individual with whom the act cannot be successful, and has no desire to attempt normal (and potentially successful) reproduction. The homosexual individual is an evolutionary failure. There is no reason for a society to legitimize this disorder by granting a pair of mental defectives the same status as a married couple.

Not mean; just reality.

According to polls by Pew Research the majority of Americans now do support gay marriage.

In the first month after Obama announced his support black Americans flipped from 60/40 opposing gay marriage to 60/40 supporting gay marriage.

"Homosexuality is correctly defined as a psychological disorder, and was only removed from the list for ideological reasons. From a bio-evolutionary perspective, the sole purpose of existence is reproduction."

So, is monogamy a psychological disorder? After all, a man could be reproducing more running around spreading his seed. The big winners of human evolution like Genghis Khan did not exactly stick to one woman even if they were married to one. Or two. Or two thousand.

Should we declare traditional marriage with all its unnatural promises of sticking to one partner a mental illness? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, just sticking to the reality that most married men aren't really doing better than the just below replacement rate fertility.

Isn't traditional marriage just a cover up for inability to impregnate lots of women ie being an evolutionary failure?

Just kidding, but it really is absurd to defend some religious vision of proper monogamous marriages with evolutionary psychobabble...

Being against gay marriage is the second most vile evil...next to "racism". Aren't there more pressing issues going on besides gay marriage? Talk about "first world problems". Pathetic.

Pew is generally unreliable. Thier question wording is sometimes designed to get desired results, and they weight their sample (ratio of Dems, GOPs, Inds) inaccurately (and very Dem heavy)

http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/thousands-turn-out-for-record-setting-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/

The people going to Chic just to spite the leftists look like a bunch of proles.

"1 Gays want tax breaks." -destructure

How do you interpret wanting access to the same set of rules as tax breaks? Say the tax benefits of marriage were quite extreme. At what point does it become tax slavery for those on the other side?

"1 The state has a compelling interest in promoting procreation within stable families" destructure

Do you maybe mean "promoting stable families for those who insist on procreating?"

List 1 point 4, "Malthusian Catastrophe," does address this. Our population levels without immigration are approximately stable, and I see no reason to subsidize more people. If we could somehow subsidize parents at +1SD or better, I might be more sympathetic.

It's possible that you could turn this around and argue that shuffling money off to kids helps promote demographic transition. hmm... It'd be best if this somehow couldn't be seen as a subsidy to/by the parents. No one should be able to think, "we want more kids and it's not that expensive since we get tax breaks."


"From a bio-evolutionary perspective, the sole purpose of existence is reproduction." Van

How does homosexuality exist at the rate of multiple %s? It's a huge immediate selective penalty, but still exists at high rates. Maybe there's a benefit to group selection. Maybe there some recessive gene or incomplete dominance in play that provides benefits for those who aren't gay. It's possible Cochran's infection theory could be right and humans simply haven't found a genetic defense yet, but I'm betting there's some other benefit.


"...Immigration, too. Same sex marriage would expand the scope for green card fraud.
...
Indeed. But why soberly consider consequences when the ~1% of gays who want to get married are being denied their civil right to do so?" DaveinHackensack

Right, nobody has done anything about immigration on any front for decades and I'm supposed to take what might be a small tick up in immigration as a reason to tax people an extra, high 5-, low 6- figures over their lifetime. Immigration moratorium, great. Using some 3rd order effect to justify unfair tax treatment, not so great.


I don't argue for gay rights broadly, but I think the gay marriage issue is very unfair, and I don't see significant practical arguments against it.

Monogamy may be a modification of man's natural reproductive style, but is still a version of successful reproduction. And it's cultural in nature; an institution that promotes stability in a society.

Homosexuality is likely (at least partially) genetic, and prevents the individual from successful reproduction.

Apples and osprey.

Tollison:

The 10% claim is a made up stat, repeated so often it has become accepted. There may be a large group of teens who experiment, but then have no interest. True homosexuality is likely no more than 3%.

There are several plausible explanations for a maladaptive trait not being selected out of a population. There is evidence that female siblings of gay men are no more likely to be homosexual, but are more likely to be promiscuous. Their higher reproductive "success" could keep the trait in the population (adaptive for females, maladaptive for males).

Also, its possible (probable) that homosexuality is polygenic. Each gene indivdually could be adaptive, but when all are present they produce a maladaptive phenotype. Sort of an anti-synergystic effect; the whole is much less than the sum of its parts.

jaakkeli,

Societies that promote polygamy haven't been very civilized or stable. Monogamy has been a stabilizing agent that gives most men a stake in their society, which promoted the growth of strong healthy societies.

"So, is monogamy a psychological disorder? " - jaakkeli

Monogamy favors intelligence. Sounds like a good reproductive strategy to me.

Also, I see that two more people have resorted to passive aggressive name-calling. Namely, "You're evil!" and "You're a prole!"

***********

"How do you interpret wanting access to the same set of rules as tax breaks?" - jtollison78

You need to either make a case that the state has a compelling interest in extending those rules to include homosexuals or that the state has no compelling interest in having those rules at all. And you haven't done that.
*
"Say the tax benefits of marriage were quite extreme. At what point does it become tax slavery for those on the other side?" - jtollison78

I feel like a victim of "tax slavery" every April 15th. If you'd like to make a case for replacing the IRS with a flat tax then I'll agree. Otherwise, you're just 'special pleading'.
*
"Do you maybe mean 'promoting stable families for those who insist on procreating?' " - jtollison78

Anyone who thinks procreation isn't necessary is either a nihilist or desperately trying to justify their own homosexuality.
*
"Our population levels without immigration are approximately stable, and I see no reason to subsidize more people. If we could somehow subsidize parents at +1SD or better, I might be more sympathetic." - jtollison78

Birth rates in developed countries are nowhere near replacement level. But birth rates are only half of it. The other half is stable families. Studies show that children from broken homes have a lot more problems that are costly to society. Not to mention that broken families use more govt services. So the state has a compelling interest in promoting stable families for procreation regardless of birth rates. Although I agree that tax breaks (or penalties) should be weighted to encourage the smartest people to have children rather than the dumbest.

Re: access to the same set of rules.

Every individual has access to the same set of rules. Each man is permitted to marry a woman, and no man is permitted to marry another man. The fact that a homosexual has no desire to exercise an allowed behavior is irrelevant.

I'm allowed to do many things that I choose not to do; and can't do some things I would prefer to do.

Equality is not the issue. The goal of the homosexual lobby is acceptance and normalization of homosexuality.

"Obviously a double standard, given that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage (as evidenced by the fact that these initiatives usually fail at the ballot box)."

They fail at the ballot box because pro-gay marriage people are too lazy to vote.

Californians are mostly pro-gay marriage, but it's the religious folks who pour in millions of dollars to defeat those measures.

"They fail at the ballot box because pro-gay marriage people are too lazy to vote."

They fail because only a very small percentage of people are truly "pro" gay marriage. Most of those who say they support it really don't care much one way or the other, and they respond through the dominant socially liberal/libertarian mindset ("why should I care what two gay dudes do?"). But they aren't truly "pro" gay marriage; they're indifferent. There's also a small percentage who are against it, but won't admit so because the media has so dominated the issue with its anti-discrimination slant.

If a poll shows 35% against, 45% for, and 20% undecided, what you really have is probably more like 40% against, 20% for, 15% truly undecided, 25% who don't care.

@DaveinHackensack: "Civil Rights was put to a legislative vote, and won majorities in the House and Senate. The only gay marriage-related legislation I can think of at the federal level was the Defense of Marriage Act, which essentially banned it."

----------------
But Civil rights were upheld in courts as well (e.g. BROWN v. BOARD, LOVING v. VIRGINIA).

Anyway...
This whole topic is a stupid circle-jerk for right-wing bigots. Gay marriage is coming and it will not doom the nation. American misadventures abroad -- such as Iraq, a multi-trillion dollar social engineering boondoggle -- will do far more harm to the republic.

Gays being treated equally under the law will have no impact, except enraging dumb hickoids.

@ The Real Vince

People who have an argument make it. Those who don't sling mud.

"The state is willing to expend resourcse to enforce the contract because it, in turn, expects the marriage to be more conducive to raising law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. In order for the state to have these expectations, the individuals have to meet certain basic requirements, including being of the appropriate gender. Homosexuals have no more "right" to marriage than a lawyer has to a medical license."

In that case, barren women and infertile men are no longer allowed to get married.

"In that case, barren women and infertile men are no longer allowed to get married." - Karen

The problem with that argument is that most infertile men and women don't know it until after they're married. And plenty of couples who've been told they couldn't have children eventually do. However, homosexuals never have children. At least not with each other. This argument was covered in the article I linked earlier.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

"In that case, barren women and infertile men are no longer allowed to get married."

Marriage is an functional social institution where the choice of members is left up to the participants. So they may choose, if they wish, those with whom it will inevitably fail in its function. But to be allowed to join an institution you must possess a function relevant to it. Same sex couples do not possess the function of producing children. And so may be justifiably prevented from membership in an institution with a procreative function.

@ Matt in RTP

I mostly agree with your take on gay men. I don't understand though how an older man offering a younger adult man money or blandishments in return for sex is truly "predatory". And, Conqusitador, a young man performing as a go-go dancer in a gay venue is not a "young boy".

Please don't distort language the way the faggots do.

@destructure

I've skimmed through most of your posts, and you're full of so much shit that it's a wonder you have not been condemned by city sanitation.

In any case, the argument for same sex marriage is rather clear, and given the responses here, seemingly unassailable: it's wrong for the govt. to discriminate against people on morally arbitrary grounds.

@ The Real Vince

All you've done is call others names and declare your opinion to be "unassailable".

The comments to this entry are closed.