In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

Surtr Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:08 AM
**Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant . . . ** -- Dennis Prager, talk-show host / hypocritical blowhard One is mystified at drawing a line in the sand over a small minority of people who would marry someone of their own sex, and yet cheer endlessly the demographic transformation of America, declaring that the former is the end of all good and that opposing the latter is evil. Hint to Prager: the transformation of America from WASP into 3rd World cesspool plagued with gangs, crime, failing schools, rotting neighborhoods, overflowing prisons, and all the other joys of "insignificant" demographic changes is FAR, FAR more important to conserving America than whether gays marry.
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 2:06 AM
The other carap you wrote follows the gay marriage.
Mark in CA Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 2:04 AM
Gangs, crime, failing schools, rotting neighborhoods, overflowing prisons all correlate with the absence of households headed by a father and a mother. That is because society over the last half century has grown to accept and subsidize alternative family structures, particularly fatherless households. Children tend to do better in life when reared in households where stable, father/mother relationships are modeled. Gay marriage cannot offer this sort of modelling. Thus it falls short of what is optimal for society and will tend to increase the total amount of societal dysfunction.
Curtis108 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:04 AM
Correlation is not causation.
Mark in CA Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:48 PM
True. However, correlation may indicate causation. In the case of the negative impact on society of households not headed by stable, husband/wife relationships, the consensus is that such a deficit is a cause. This is based on social studies, observations and common sense.

For you to state simplistically "Correlation is not causation" indicates that you have have a view that is not grounded in observations, research or common sense.

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...