What does that mean, per se? Like they can't have a ceremony, a celebration and a cake or receive gifts....WTF?
I think what happened for me at least age brings tolerance. For me I figured out that it is not my job to stop people from doing things that don't hurt others and let God decide on judgement day.
I think both of you are correct and would add that young people were more tolerant than their elders. This fall we'll have a new crop of 17 year olds who weren't even born before 9/11. Times change.
Ever since the beginning of civilization, "marriage" has been a physical, material, and spiritual union of males with females. I support that as "marriage", per se. The very process by which life began and evolved starting well over three billion years ago is rooted in the union of males with females. All other 'unions' simply exist for the duration of the individual(s) themselves, and then, die.... Nevertheless, in the U. S. today, given that ours is a secular society, I support a civil union -- a contractual, binding relationship which government recognizes between any adult people, whether they are males, females, 'undecided', 'bi-sexual', or they don't really know what the hell they are from one day to the next.
I would submit that until recently, males and females randomly had sex with womever they had a shot at and procreated. Probably much like the animal kingdom where the dominant male usually got the best looking females any time they wanted. Marriage was originally a religious sacrament. So in my view, if a religion decides that they support marriage between same sex partners, that is all that matters. Legally, whatever responsibilities and advantages that come with a marriage like contract between two people either will be offered to any two people who wish to enter into such a contract or will not based on whether they are of opposite sexes or same sex. I personally don't give a damn.
Times may change but the insanity of the young remains the same. Without a few decades of life experience under their belts they can't expect to make informed decisions about much. So many in the new generation still live with their parents and therefore have no life experience to base their decisions on so they just go with the flavor of the month, usually against the opinions of their parents.
I'm sure you know from experience. A favorite television quote is "children are, by adult standards, insane." If an educated adult mind is like a well pruned tree, then a child's mind is like a bramble bush. Which is why it's difficult to diagnose mental illness in children since they, by adult standards, insane. Another reason why I think people who try to identify "gender" in a prepubescent child are one or two cans short of a six-pack. https://www.quora.com/Do-parents-of...now-there-is-something-wrong-with-their-child The level of education and understanding of psychology and psychiatric treatment, child development, parenting skills and family dynamics, and a number of other areas will influence the parents’ abilities to recognize a developing personality disorder. In my case, none of my children have personality disorders but they do have other issues. With one, we recognized that there was an issue before he was a year old but it took persistent effort until he was eleven to get an accurate diagnosis. With another, we knew when she was a toddler but no psychiatrist will even consider treatment before the age of five. So we started as soon as we could. And of course, it’s really hard to diagnose mental health problems in very young kids. Basically, by adult standards, all children are insane.
That assumes that the pro traditionalists are trying to stop gays from "doing something ," such as cohabiting, adopting, or having sex, whereas the real debate is whether two men, or two women, can call themselves "married" and require that the state bless the union As such. Imdividuals have rights, of course. But society also has rights, or at least prerogatives. I don't believe that every time a society draws lines that it has to be an actionable violation of an individual's rights, though all laws either require that we do or not do something. Are all laws therefore unconstitutional?
From the 100,000 foot-level, this whole thing about 'gay marriage' and increasing approval of homosexuality probably has more to do with human overpopulation than we realize. Go back and re-read the scientific studies conducted by Dr. B. F. Skinner way back in the 1930's. It's all there, plain as day, for those gifted with the ability to understand, even though the final results of Skinner's experiments have devastating implications for contemporary societies. How does total anarchy, chaos, destruction of the community, and mass-murder sound? Before anyone tells me I'm wrong, re-read Skinner....
Human progress has been characterized by the ineluctable advace of equality and inclusiveness. With the conspicuous exception of extremely conservative Islamic theocracies, treating our fellow human beings fairly - especially women and those with differing sexual propensities - has been a significant advance in that social evolution.
I've read a great deal about B.F. Skinner and his studies, but don't recall the one you're referencing. Anything in particular? Religious pigeons? Skinner box? Walden Two?
Some people start their life very rigidly in their views and then as they age, realize there is room for other views even if they don't agree with them. They just mellow over the years. Others go the opposite. Very free early on, and then rigid in their old age.
obviously you are behind the times. but that is expected of people as you. thank you for your comment.
Hillary, Bill, Biden and Obama were already well into their 50's at least when they suddenly saw a right in the constitution that they, with their Ivy league legal educations, previously failed to notice. The wind was blowing and they didn't have enough strength to stand up to it. Not sure about Biden's education, but he knew it wasn't in the Constitution.
I don't know where it is written that the constitution can be bent and twisted to accommodate "the times." Will you be so permissive when the wind starts blowing in the opposite direction?
The crazy thing is that gay marriage has been legal here for 10 years.... and as far as I am aware the world has continued as before. In restrospect it is unclear what all the fuss was about. If California voted again, gay marriage would pass overwhelmingly
The "Skinner boxes", Max. Remember how as the rat population spirals up over the 'tipping-point', the females all go nuts, everybody starts attacking everybody else, the dominant males fight a losing battle to preserve their territories, and the whole thing ends up being a bloody, chaotic mess -- and order is not restored until the population returns to 'manageable' levels. Essentially the same kind of thing happened with the controlled monkey population experiments, too. Frightening implications for us, Max, and at this point I don't see how we can avoid it.
That wasn't Skinner. You're thinking of John Calhoun's experiments on population density. FWIW, since you seem interested in psychology: https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/influential-psychological-experiments/ http://mentalfloss.com/article/52787/10-famous-psychological-experiments-could-never-happen-today
My official position on gay marriage: Who the hell cares? Let people live their lives as they see fit. If someone objects on religious grounds, fine, don't allow them to marry in your church and leave other people alone. I see it as 100% a control issue. The only reason I can see that anyone would care is if they feel the need to control other people.
”Pro traditionalists” are absolutely trying to stop gays from “doing something”, the ability to adopt is under attack across the country. Only 8% of people against same sex marriage don’t also want consensual same sex relations to remain legal. Marriage is a legal contract and there is zero reason to deny same sex couples the same benifit as opposite sex ones.
