Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Homosexuality and religion revert war

message: I thought about writing something to oppose Inthebeginning's views, but decided not to, since it would not be relevant to the topic of the article. And since my whole contention is that his/her addition is not releveant to begin with, it would be silly of me to put a bunch more irrelevant material to balance it out. And besides, my own understanding of this matter is not really relevant here. I could agree completely with her/his comments. I don't, but I could. And I would still find it irrelevant in this article. 
I sort of want to argue the matter here, but I don't want to dilute my assertion that the whole thing simply does not belong in this article. 
Inthebeginning (would you mind if I call you "ITB"?) says, ...all societies that have accepted homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle have fertility rates below replacement and are certain to perish off the face of the earth unless they reverse their position. Those societies that legalize gay marriage have also legalized no-fault divorce and abortion. No-fault divorce and abortion always precede gay marriage.
Where to start? What s/he says is "D (no-fault divorce) and A (abortion) precede H (homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle) in those societies where H exists. H accompanies L (low fertility rates)." Even if it is true that H accompanies L, it is a logical falacy to suppose that H causes L. One would have to examine societies which do not have H and see if they also have L. 
It is known that high economic and educational levels generally coincide with (maybe produce?) L. Countries which allow A and D tend to be ones which have higher economic and educational levels. There certainly is no reason to blame L on H. 
I believe that the first country in modern times to allow same-sex marriage is the Netherlands, in 2001. In that time, what precipitous decline of population has been recorded? I don't know. Maybe he/she can back up his/her assertion with hard facts from the last five years, but I doubt it. 
But none of that is relevant to "homosexuality and religion."
ITB does try to make it relevant by the assertion This explains why there has not been gay marriage in past - religious prohabitions against homosexuality have guaranteed survival. First, no it does not explain anything. It may be true that "it makes sense to me," but that is not the same as explanation. It is like saying, "Trichonosis explains why pork was considered unclean in the ancient Jewish law." Well, no it doesn't. That may have been the reason, or part of it, but I don't know, can't know. I can guess, but all it is is a guess. Same in this case. A guess is all it can ever be. Second, it makes no sense. If religions prohibited same-sex marriage for the sake of procreation, then there would not be so many voices in several religions in favor of celibacy. Christianity certainly has it, in the persons of Jesus Christ and Saint Paul, both of whom obviously prefer celibacy over marriage and procreation. Buddhism absolutely shows this, with Buddha himself teaching that sexual desire and its fulfillment is no way to reach enlightment. Hinduism has its tradition of celibate holy men, about which I don't know enough to comment other than the simply assertion of their existence. 
The problem is that homosexuals comprise only about 2-3% of any population, according to any reliable research I have read. That's just not enough to deplete the population. It is far less of a concern than would be a whole bunch of Christians or Buddhists taking seriously the words of their respective founders and Scriptures. It is at least theoretically possible that, oh, let's just say 50% of all Christians could decide to become "eunuchs for the Kingdom." But it's not theoretically possible in any universe I have ever inhabitted for 50% of the population to be gay.
And there is the problem for me. Whenever I am confronted by an assertion which makes no sense to me at all, I ask myself, "What set of assumptions would make this reasonable?" And the best I can come up with in this case is, "I think ITB is assuming that if same-sex marriages were made legal, then hoards of men would 'decide to live a homosexual lifestyle,' and would flock to the courthouses to divorce their wives and marry their beer-drinking buddies." In the universe I inhabit, this would not happen. The men who live in the same universe as I are mostly straight, and will always be that way. I have yet to meet one who is waiting for legal approval so he can 'convert.' -- This is the only thing I can think of which makes sense out of ITB's assertion. If somebody else can think of another angle, I would love to hear it. 
But still, none of this is relevant. Even if the argument "religions prohibit it because it decreases population" were true, it would need to be stated, with support, for each religion for which it is true, not in general, since various religions in this article treat sexuality differently. If only two of them encourage celibacy, then you can't say that all of them in general prohibit homosexual marriage for the sake of population. 
I'm tired of typing. That's enough for now.  Sean Lotz  talk  08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I do not want to counter-argue 

message: Just for convenience, here is a link to an old version with the disputed text. It is the fourth paragraph, beginning with, "One fact that is not disputed...." Ironic, isn't it, that all this dispute is about a declaration of indisputability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_religion&oldid=90653254
 Sean Lotz  talk  18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disputed text 

message: Well, I don't know when one just admits that the issue is moot, but it has been a week since Inthebeginning's last edit to the page in question, so I suspect this is a non-issue. Maybe she/he will return from vacation or something in a few days and it will start up again, but for now, it looks like the issue is settled. I hope that you, Dmeyering, will keep watching the page just in case, but if nothing else happens and there is no further call for communication here, I want to thank you now for your offer of help (and you, too, Wikizach, but apparently you've left already).    Sean Lotz  talk  01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, still here just busy with cases. WikieZach| talk 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, well, I'm always willing to help out...in a way I'm kind of glad it worked out the way it did.  Hopefully, if there is a resurgence in activity, we can discuss it again, but for now this case seems to have cooled itself off.  In any case, I hope there is some degree of satisfaction all around.  Without any further developments, Wikizach or myself will probably close the case in a couple of days.  Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead in the water?