My guess is that the great bulk of people who condemn same-sex
marriage are also quite troubled by out-of-wedlock births and by divorce. One
common argument, indeed, is that (1) we tinkered with traditional sexual and
marital mores, and the result - much greater out-of-wedlock birth rates and
divorce rates - has been bad for society, so (2) we should therefore stop
tinker with what sexual and marital mores we have left. Indeed, my sense is
that cultural conservatives tend to think that the American heterosexual
lifestyle is indeed badly broken in many ways, though in ways that are
politically and socially hard to stop.
As it happens, I don't agree with that argument, for reasons I
outlined before. But I don't see how high divorce rates and high
out-of-wedlock birth rates in opposite-sex-only-marriage states tells us much
about whether same-sex marriage is or is not a good idea, much less about
whether opposite-sex-only-marriage rules are or are not rational.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:45 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Mr. Pardee, I have just posted some statistics on divorce and out-of-wedlock
births that might pass as "facts." They suggest that states that allow same
sex marriages have lower divorce rates and lower out of wedlock birth rates
than state that oppose same sex marriage. Might we consider this the
"hetero-sexual lifestyle"?
*************************************************
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com>
*************************************************
________________________________
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Brad Pardee
[bp51...@windstream.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:27 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
How many moral questions are based on scientific fact? Whether an argument is
in support of same sex marriage/relationships or in opposition to them, it
ultimately boils down to a question about what you believe is right and and
what you believe is wrong, and those questions, no matter which side of the
question you find yourself supporting, are rarely, if ever, supported by
scientific fact. If they were, then nature's display of the law of survival of
the fittest, a scientifically verified phenomena to be certain , would seem to
suggest that objection to killing is irrational.
Brad Pardee
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:00 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational? Understand that
it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if
fails, it will have to be deemed irrational.
On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard"
<richard.esenb...@marquette.edu<mailto:richard.esenb...@marquette.edu>> wrote:
My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage -
even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual
relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
