[Conor Friedersdorf]
You're probably familiar with the conservative case for gay marriage, articulated most eloquently by Andrew Sullivan on many occasions. Here is one:
Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital importance of the institution of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men. Bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways. When I grew up and realized I was gay, I had no concept of what my own future could be like. Like most other homosexuals, I grew up in a heterosexual family and tried to imagine how I too could one day be a full part of the family I loved. But I figured then that I had no such future. I could never have a marriage, never have a family, never be a full and equal part of the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning. When I looked forward, I saw nothing but emptiness and loneliness. No wonder it was hard to connect sex with love and commitment. No wonder it was hard to feel at home in what was, in fact, my home.
For today's generation of gay kids, all that changes. From the beginning, they will be able to see their future as part of family life — not in conflict with it. Their "coming out" will also allow them a "coming home." And as they date in adolescence and early adulthood, there will be some future anchor in their mind-set, some ultimate structure with which to give their relationships stability and social support. Many heterosexuals, I suspect, simply don't realize how big a deal this is. They have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love. So they find it hard to conceive how deep a psychic and social wound the exclusion from marriage and family can be.
Gay marriage ought to be legal. Most conservatives and libertarians I know who are 30 or younger feel the same way, even if we'd rather that judges not impose it. (The established rules of our state constitutions protect so many rights under a strict constructionist reading. Loose constructionists, though most seek to guarantee more liberty, risk undermining the liberty we already possess by permitting interpretations that haven't any grounding in the text.)
There are non-bigoted arguments against gay marriage -- basically the view that any change to a vitally important, long held institution should be resisted. But I never quite grasp why some conservatives find the notion of gay people getting married a bigger threat to traditional family norms than the alternative -- that is, gay people who aren't married living together and having sex, raising children, etc., within a gay culture where monogamy is a less powerful norm.
Isn't that a more transgressive lifestyle, by the lights of conservatism, than gay people being married? And isn't it obvious that is the choice that society faces? Andrew wrote about the conservative norms gay marriage would communicate to young homosexuals. I'd add that the same goes for young straight people!
If you're a conservative who opposes gay marriage, do me the favor of considering a hypothetical, which I've long sought a response to:
An 8-year-old goes to play at the house of his friend, who is raised by two lesbian women. The environment is a loving one. So this playmate, whose straight parents are married, is going to absorb one of two possible norms.
1) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents are married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, they get married. (I hope I get married one day.)
Or
2) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents aren't married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, sometimes they get married like my parents. Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents. (One day I may get married and have kids, but maybe I'll just have kids and live with the person I love.)
Conservatives should prefer the former scenario.
Yet many advocate gay marriage bans that bring about the latter scenario -- not just when kids happen to meet gay parents in elementary school, but when they see gay people in television shows or movies, start having dinner at a gay professor's house in college, or converse with gay friends they meet in their twenties.
These gay people, if they cannot marry, are going to cohabitate and have kids anyway. Why undermine the norm of married family life by denying them the ability to practice it? Why create a whole category of people to spread the norm of unmarried family life?
Conor, you're problem is that you're employing things like "logic" and "reason." The conservative argument against gay marriage basically boils down to "circle circle, dot dot, now I have my cootie shot." They're just scared of buttsex, but only gay buttsex, not "in a straight marriage with the women's eyes closed and only the man gets any pleasure out of it" buttsex. Or if you're a Bush administration appointee, it is "butt rape while your wife is asleep and you miss her vagina" buttsex.
You're assuming all kids will encounter a lesbian or gay couple raising children. I'm not sure I've ever encountered this in life or if so only rarely. (On TV of course I've encountered it plenty. And I do know gay couples in life, but they're childless)
You're additionally assuming kids will not encounter a relatively loving straight couple raising kids without benefit of marriage. (Unlike the gay couple with kids I've encountered this)
Possibly this occurs in some cities, but I'm skeptical. I would think unmarried straight couples raising children certainly happens in cities, unless urban heterosexuals are somehow more old-fashioned. If they are I find this puzzling as they aren't in most other areas. Do you have an explanation? The only thing coming to mind is that urban heterosexual couples might use birth control more consistently and therefore not have kids. (Although that doesn't make a whole heck of a lot sense either)
In another vein you have to assume that life's alternatives are promiscuity and marriage. This makes sense from a kind of Calvinist/Puritan perspective, but neither I nor Mr. Sullivan came from that. From my perspective non-marriage does not necessarily mean promiscuity and being married doesn't necessarily result in perpetual monogamy. (Sullivan even concedes the latter)
Lastly you have to assume being gay is identical to being straight in almost every way except plumbing. Yet Sullivan himself concedes men and women have some basic differences. That gays may even have some inherent differences to straights. Yet the idea of same-sex marriage, by Sullivan and others, is that they can be corraled into being like heterosexuals. That they can become "Virtually Normal." That fitting them into a mode never made for them will make them "act right", proper, etc. This is very much an anti-multicultural viewpoint, but personally I'm not convinced uniculturalism even is conservative.
To me conservatism recognizes the differences, and in some ways inequalities, in life. I have osteogenesis imperfecta. That means I am 42 inches tall with brittle bones. I try to live normally, but to pretend I'm normal is simply patronizing and unhelpful. My life is different and I'm happy for that difference.
I used to think gay marriage was fine so long as that's what the people of a state want. I still think SSM is tolerable if that's what the people of a state want, but I've changed my mind on the "fine" element. Because it's based in the flawed premise mentioned of "let's pretend everyone is the same." Well we're not. In every society I'm aware of that allowed the union of two men they did not deem it "the same." It's not going to be the same no matter how much you beg. Even if you change the laws to make it sound the same. However being meant for a different kind of life, or union, doesn't need to be a tragedy and an affliction.
Lastly, considering how often I'm attracted to men, this is certainly not any kind of "fear of gay sex" deal.
Abraham Lincoln was fond of the following joke: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four -- calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg". The short answer for at least some conservatives, is that words do indeed have meaning and that, in the context of human relationships, "marriage" has a very specific and perfectly satisfactory definition: the union of a man and woman. "Marriage", in fact, is such a neatly defined word, that it doesn't need any modifiers at all -- it is what it is. The notion of "gay" marriage is exactly analogous to "three-sided" quadrilateral -- the modifier contradicts the subject.
Conservatives don't actually care about marriage as an institution (just ask Foley, Craig, Fosella, Vitner, Gingrich, Allen, Haggard, etc. etc.). They care about marginalizing anyone who is different in order to maintian the one "long held institution" they really care about, their own privileged status. That is the heart of conservatism and always has been.
from Victor Hugo's novel "'93" --
“And woman? What will you do with her?”
Cimourdain answered, “I’ll leave her what she is: man’s servant.”
“Yes, on one condition,” responded Gauvain.
“What is it?”
“That man also be woman’s servant.”
“Are you serious?” cried Cimourdain. “Man a servant? Never! Man is the master. I acknowledge only one kind of royalty: that of the home. A man is king in his own home.”
“Yes, on one condition.”
“What is it?”
“That woman be queen there.”
“In short, between men and women you want…”
“Equality.”
“Equality! You can’t mean it. Man and woman are two different creatures.”
“I said equality. I didn’t say identity.”…
A civil union guarantees equality; gay "marriage" seeks identity.
The societal choices are hardly limited to "married" and "not married". The "Gay Civil Union", or just "Civil Union" is a legal status which defines a long term committed relationship, without misnaming it a "marriage"; and, confers all of the legal rights and protections of legal civil marriage. It is generally considered unacceptable in the militant gay/lesbian communities because it does not blur the distinction between the relationships; and, it doesn't confer or attempt to confer "normality" on the gay/lesbian relationship.
"Abraham Lincoln was fond of the following joke: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four -- calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg". The short answer for at least some conservatives, is that words do indeed have meaning and that, in the context of human relationships, "marriage" has a very specific and perfectly satisfactory definition: the union of a man and woman. "Marriage", in fact, is such a neatly defined word, that it doesn't need any modifiers at all -- it is what it is. The notion of "gay" marriage is exactly analogous to "three-sided" quadrilateral -- the modifier contradicts the subject.
Posted by m | May 28, 2008 7:46 AM"
And "fuck" used to mean to plant a seed in soil, so a farmer thus could be out fucking the field. Words change in meeting with changing circumstances. Consider how often the earliest gay Christians got married to each other (including, we now know, some of the earliest Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire), this is simply a shift. Marriage used to mean a women's family giving her away like property to a man and his family. It was about possession and control. It's only relatively recent in human history that "marriage" has become about love and companionship. If language didn't change, we would all be talking like they did in Beowulf or would all be speaking ancient Greek.
"It is generally considered unacceptable in the militant gay/lesbian communities because it does not blur the distinction between the relationships; and, it doesn't confer or attempt to confer "normality" on the gay/lesbian relationship.
Posted by Ed Reid | May 28, 2008 8:33 AM"
Yeah, how dare those militant gays and lesbians not want to be singled out as freaks.
Here's an idea: get the state out of the marriage business. If you want to have a church wedding and call it a marriage, go ahead, but you're relationship isn't any better or realer than a gay or lesbian couple's because one of you has a penis and the other has a vagina. Having "His and Her" towels isn't what makes a relationship deep.
"...,but you're relationship isn't any better or realer than a gay or lesbian couple's because one of you has a penis and the other has a vagina."
No, it is more significant because one of us has testicles and the other has ovaries and a uterus, thus creating the potential to produce children.
I did not refer to those at the tails of the normal distribution curve as "freaks", by the way.
The short answer for at least some conservatives, is that words do indeed have meaning and that, in the context of human relationships, "marriage" has a very specific and perfectly satisfactory definition: the union of a man and woman. "Marriage", in fact, is such a neatly defined word, that it doesn't need any modifiers at all -- it is what it is. The notion of "gay" marriage is exactly analogous to "three-sided" quadrilateral -- the modifier contradicts the subject.
Posted by m | May 28, 2008 7:46 AM
------------------------------------------
The problem with this approach is that the above definition is simply the CHRISTIAN definition of marriage. As is well known, Muslims(and many non-Muslim cultures)allow for polygamy in their definition of marriage Some cultures have allowed for a married man to take concubines. There are even a couple of cultures that allow for polyandrous unions. And in every one of those cultures, a dog still has four legs.
The "some conservatives" referenced by M make the assumption that what is traditional in their particular culture has permanent, universal validity. Put more bluntly, they are rather narrow minded.
Conor says that I never quite grasp why some conservatives find the notion of gay people getting married a bigger threat to traditional family norms than the alternative.
He should read his hostess's really really long post on gay marriage:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Her point - taken from GK Chesterton - is that if you can't understand why people would oppose your proposal, you shouldn't be allowed to implement it.
That goes double for Reality Man, who mocks conservatives but never really responds to what they have to say.
I'm all for people being able to do what they want. I acknowledge that lesbians tend to have stable relationships, though slightly less so than heterosexuals. (My girlfriend's sister is getting hitched out here in Cali and she's fantastic. I wish her all the best.) However I do have several sincere questions;
1. Gay men have, on average, much shorter, less stable relationships than heterosexual couples. Should this be taken into account regarding adoption?
2. Even most gay male couples have a tremendously high rate of infidelity, often by mutual agreement of the two parties. And some studies suggest that men who express attraction for other men are also more likely to have more heterosexual contacts than other men (though they may not always identify as gay). Which is more likely to increase the number of sexual contacts that a man predisposed to like other men experiences;
a. Society advocating a heterosexual or celebate lifestyle.
b.Society advocating gay marraige.
And, critically, what evidence (anecdotal, historical, or statistical) is there to support your conclusion.
3. Is it in society's interest to legally compel employers to give same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual ones or make religious organizations be legally liable for not hiring openly gay employees? If not, what does that say about a person's rights to free association?
Yes, for a same-sex couple, getting married is a conservative step much as it is for an opposite-sex couple. It disappoints me that people refuse to see that, or don't acknowledge it when they do see it.
A civil union guarantees equality;
In theory, it does. In practice, as has been found in N.J. and Conn., it doesn't because the thousands of people who come into contact with same-sex couples in their work lives haven't been and won't be trained to view civil unions as the full, legal equivalent of marriage, and many businesses behave that way, too.
Reality Man - "It's only relatively recent in human history that "marriage" has become about love and companionship" -
There's strong evidence of traditions within Judaism and Christianity actually being more opposed to the 'property' oriented view of women prevalent in their surrounding society, recognizing female choice in opposing marriages, opposing child marriages and so forth. I mean, look at the Song of Solomon; "I am my beloved and my beloved is mine."
Does that sound like 'property' rights?
1. Gay men have, on average, much shorter, less stable relationships than heterosexual couples. Should this be taken into account regarding adoption?
My partner and I have been together for more than twelve years. If we wanted to adopt, would you argue that we are too likely to have a "much shorter, less stable" relationship and so shouldn't? Based on what, considering you aren't a case worker and haven't met us?
Adoptive couples should be viewed and judged as individual couples. Any two people who only recently met or moved in together should have troubles adopting children, so people liable to break up after 2 months or 6 months can/should have done so before reaching that point. Or do you have evidence that male-male couples who've been together 3 or more years are all on the verge of breaking up.
It really is about the meaning of the word. I'd be all for the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. As a Catholic, "marriage" has a pretty specific meaning to me. If gay marriage became fully enshrined in law, I would be forced to completely stop using the word "marriage" and start talking about "matrimony" or "sacramental matrimony" or something like that, for clarity's sake.
But I suspect that if I started doing that, they would pass a law to usurp that word too. Better to end government recognition of ANY marriage.
or make religious organizations be legally liable for not hiring openly gay employees?
Foul ball, the equivalent of "does this mean I have to marry my dog and my dead grandma now??" That has nothing to do with gay marriage, and the issue that does have some bearing on it, anti-discrimination laws, have all had extensive religious exemptions carved out. If you think gays are going to force the Southern Baptist Convention to hire us as preachers, go fight to have those religious exemptions enforced, but don't muddy the waters on gay marriage with distractions.
As a Catholic, "marriage" has a pretty specific meaning to me.
Yes, it means a marriage performed by a priest, and until recently (or even currently, I don't know) it meant a marriage between two communicants of the Catholic Church.
The fact that people also use the term to refer to a ceremony performed by a rabbi or a justice of the Peace, with our without the mention of God, hasn't forced you to drop the nomenclature already. Why not, since those marriages are not marriages by the Catholic definition, which goes considerably beyond "a union of a man and a woman"?
"The fact that people also use the term to refer to a ceremony performed by a rabbi or a justice of the Peace, with our without the mention of God,"
Actually most of those are considered perfectly valid. Church Law says if you are a Catholic you have to be married by a priest, but for non-Catholics there is no such requirement.
If someone wants to worry about threats to the institution of marriage, gay marriage is exactly the wrong place to look. The real threat comes from "domestic partnerships."
Mostly, they are legal creations which confer many of the rights of marriage...without bothering with requiring the responsibilities of marriage. Which is why a substantial majority of registered domestic partnerships are not gay couples. They are heterosexual couples who could get married, but chose not to.
Why not get married? Because that would force them to accept responsibilities. Since, some commenters' views notwithstanding, being conservative is really all about responsibility, the real conservative approach is to allow gay marriage while eliminating domestic partnerships. Only a non-conservative bigotted approach opts for continuing the prohibition on gay marriage.
Kevin, in what sense does the Catholic Church recognize a civil ceremony or, say, a Mormon wedding? What does that validity mean or confer? This is interesting, I'm really not up on the specifics of church doctrine. Do they grant divorces and annulments to people who haven't had a church ceremony?
An 8-year-old goes to play at the house of his friend, who is raised by two lesbian women. . .
Well there's the first problem with your hypothetical. Many parents would not allow their children to play at the homes of people they consider to be sexual deviants. Heck, my father is a widower, and when my little sister was 13, one of her friend's parents would not allow the her to sleep over at our house because they believed that a single man should not be alone in the house overnight with two teenage girls. Many parents are completely insane when it comes to their children and even the hint of anything having to do with sex. People who have issues with gay relationships are likely to simply preclude your scenario from ever taking place.
As the comments indicate, marriage is a complicated institution rooted in family, community, church, and state. It's changed over time, as women's roles and status have changed, and as families and communities have changed. Now, the civil element of marriage seems to have redacted to a legal sanction of a private union. The religious element is still whatever each church community wants to make of it, so we can leave that aside.
And as marriage has become just another civil contract enforceable at law, it has developed into a prime political issue.
So let's agree on that one. The definition of civil marriage is a matter for the polity. What Andrew Sullivan has clamored for in his writings is a simple thing from his point of view: acceptance of being "almost normal", as he puts it (he thinks it's a small chromosomal delta that makes for homosexuality). So, if homosexual marriage is about promoting the social acceptability of homosexuality, let's make it clear that this is what we are talking about. Perhaps that's why the most radical homosexuals frown on marriage, they like their fringe status and don't want to be mainstream.
But for the rest of us, i.e., the polity at large, it's a question of politics. So, persuade us. You want social recognition, make your case, as Sullivan does. But please accept that it's a political decision, not a judicial one. Social recognition of various norms of behaviors and the award of a state imprint on private unions should be decided on politically.
And that makes almost any arguments fair game, it seems to me. You vote the way you feel or think, so any feeling or thinking that determines your vote is allright, that's the way it is in our great democracy. But let's have a vote, for the Constitution's sake.
"But I never quite grasp why some conservatives find the notion of gay people getting married a bigger threat to traditional family norms than the alternative"
One reason is gender roles. My arch-conservative stepmother, for example, thinks a woman's place is in the home, and that women work only because their man doesn't earn enough money, or because they weren't able to hang onto a man.
She opposes gay marriage because that opens up the idea that maybe women aren't always women and men aren't always men. Now, somewhere out in the evil big cities she knows perverse things like that happen, but they aren't the law and they aren't around here, thank goodness. (Anything subtle she just ignores.)
Marriage isn't subtle. It's a ceremony performed in front of witnesses and recognized by the law, for heaven's sake. Gay marriage would put a crack in her world a mile wide.
Brittain33 - My partner and I have been together for more than twelve years. If we wanted to adopt, would you argue that we are too likely to have a "much shorter, less stable" relationship and so shouldn't?
No, and congratulations.
Adoptive couples should be viewed and judged as individual couples.
I agree. The question is; if there are statistical differences between a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple at one year or two, should those be open for consideration? What's more important; that a child gets the best home
that they can or that sex is not viewed as a criterion in the process? Both standards have negatives and positives.
or make religious organizations be legally liable for not hiring openly gay employees?
Foul ball, the equivalent of "does this mean I have to marry my dog and my dead grandma now??"
Not in the slightest. I'm generally not one for slippery slope arguments (or reductio ad absurdum) but I'm willing to bet money that if gay marriage is legalized you'll have some churches opposed to hiring same sex couples (I'm not talking preachers here) and some of these conflicts will end up in court. I wouldn't go to such institutions. But given such church's premises and given the speech codes enacted in other countries (and given the Judciary's tendency to overrule local law, even when it has popular support) I totally understand their concerns.
Gay men have, on average, much shorter, less stable relationships than heterosexual couples. Should this be taken into account regarding adoption?
No. Half of all marriages end in divorce, which is hardly a spectacular standard. Of course we have no idea what the corresponding rates might be for gay marriage, and I'd be disinclined to set policy on a guess.
Which is more likely to increase the number of sexual contacts that a man predisposed to like other men experiences...
I'm not sure why it should be the state's business how many people one sleeps with. But if the goal is restricting sexual activity, perhaps you'd prefer to illegalize premarital sex?
Conor,
Thank you for presenting a reasoned and persuasive argument. You have shifted my position from ambivalence to supportive of gay marriage.
Regards,
Neil
No. Half of all marriages end in divorce, which is hardly a spectacular standard.
First, this does not mean that half of all married people get divorces. Some people get several while others get none.
I'd be disinclined to set policy on a guess.
If we don't know, of course, we're already 'setting policy based on a guess.' It's just a matter of in which direction you'd prefer to err.
I'm not sure why it should be the state's business how many people one sleeps with.
Because there's a CDC and a police force? Why should those things exist? The state has an interest in having kids raised in families, which is why we have marriage in the first place, and assign certain privileges to it. If unmarried motherhood wasn't associated with poverty and criminality, and if the state didn't have to pick up the slack this wouldn't be such an issue. But we have laws against speeding, not just against crashing.
Re: Consider how often the earliest gay Christians got married to each other
There was no gay "marriage" in ancient Christianity. There was a rite called adelphopoiesis (sp?) that blessed the union of same sex couples, but it was not marriage-- for one thing, it did not preclude either of the particpants making a heterosexual marriage. It was more common in the East (where even some Byzantine emperors went through it) and did confer some inheritance and kinship rights, and it was forbidden to the celibate (e.g., monks).
Re: Gay men have, on average, much shorter, less stable relationships than heterosexual couples. Should this be taken into account regarding adoption?
Yes, but only at the individual level. In other words the question should be "How stable is THIS relationship?" not "How stable of these sorts of relationships?" (for comparison, it is an unfortuante fact that crinme rates for Farican Americansare higher than for the general public, but we would think it outrageous if someone refused to hire a qualified applicant with no criminal record based on that generic fact).
Re: Even most gay male couples have a tremendously high rate of infidelity, often by mutual agreement of the two parties.
Is there some level of infidelity that invalidates a marriage automatically? Again, thsi is something that needs to considered on an individual level, not by "group think".
Re:
a. Society advocating a heterosexual or celebate lifestyle.
b.Society advocating gay marraige.
??
This is a false dichotomy. Society can advocate marriage in general after all. As for celibacy, society ought honor that choice (nowadays it is treated as almost pathological) but it is a rare and heroic choice, one undertaken usually out of a deep religious calling. Society cannot and should not advocate it in general for a whole class of people, let alone seek to force it on anyone. Human beings are psychologically constructed for intimate loving relationships with other humans; a few may be called to be the especial beloved of God, but the rest of us need someone to love and be loved by our own species.
Re: Is it in society's interest to legally compel employers to give same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual ones or make religious organizations be legally liable for not hiring openly gay employees?
This can be easily handled by the religious organization providing domestic partner benefits to any sort of partner withoyt inquiry as to whether the relationshop is sexual: for example, a parent could be place an adult child on his/her health policy; or siblings could do the same. Thus religious scruples about homosexuality would not be challenged. And of course religions retain their sovereign right to define the prerequisites for clerical ordination and sacramental particpation: hence we would no more need to fear law suits demanding ordination of gays, or gay weddings than we now fear lawsuits demanding female Catholic clergy, marriage for divorced Catholics, baptism of unbelievers etc.
Re: Kevin, in what sense does the Catholic Church recognize a civil ceremony or, say, a Mormon wedding?
The Catholic Church does regard married couples who were married in other churches or by civil rites as "living in sin" They are seen as legimately (but not perhaps sacramentally) married. Annulments are very easy to process for such persons should they psot-divorce wish to marry a Catholic.
The notion of "gay" marriage is exactly analogous to "three-sided" quadrilateral -- the modifier contradicts the subject.
A better geometric analogy would be "equilateral"-- with (social) conservatives being the ones saying "'Equilateral' has always referred only to triangles; an 'equilateral rectangle' is a contradiction in terms." To which the simplest answer is, "Fine, have it your way. We'll call it a 'rhombus' instead, but it is what it is." Voila, civil unions!
You're assuming all kids will encounter a lesbian or gay couple raising children. I'm not sure I've ever encountered this in life or if so only rarely.
I see several at my church most Sundays.
I concur with Megan, however, that this is an area to tread lightly. I also understand Andrew Sullivan's position on access to marriage as a factor in the socialization of gay men.
Let federalism and the political process fix things. Louisiana and two other states have gone back to the Roman model of two levels of marriages, one easy to dissolve and one not. Should hte resu of the states follow? Let's watch LA and see.
We have argued that women belong in the workforce because it ought to be a right, and because by not having women in an organization, we suffer from the lack of their unique insights and contributions. We can assume the reverse would be true if men were trying to make their way in a world dominated by women.
In other words, men and women, while different, have unique things they can impart to the world in which they live.
To the extent gay marriage becomes normative and legal, then we can rightfully follow that the adoption and/or raising of kids by gay individuals is equally fine.
What we then are doing is putting a sovereign stamp on the idea that a child will not suffer any harm in doing without direct biological and supervisory input from one sex or the other. As it is, it is difficult to raise kids in heterosexual households so that they have a balanced view where women are respected and the relationship between the two parents is ideal.
In this new world, we will have an entire generation that will not have the benefit of observation, word or example in seeing the sexes relate to each other in the closest fashion possible. A whole generation will not really know what marriage between men and women involves, and how the sexes have to give and take.
This is not exactly resolved by denying the rite of marriage since gay people can and do raise kids to good and bad result (just like everyone else... in theory... not enough studies out) right now. But by giving gay marriage the state sanction, one is certainly saying that the differences between men and women are moot, and lessons learned from observing how they interact can be picked up on the fly.
One imagines a daughter raised by two men, who misses a bevy of observational experiences, whether it's simply grooming, or watching a mom breastfeed, or listening to that mother talk on the phone to her friends about uniquely women things. This daughter will get one half the picture, and the hope, I guess is that this one half will be worth the whole.
I wonder.
Someone also mentioned marriage as a "socilizing factor for gay men". I don't think that will actually work.
The thing that socializes a man, or makes him less wild, or less boorish, or less promiscuous, is not marriage. It's the influence of someone who is not all those things. Women's heads are not in the same place as men emotionally, physically or biologically. Different processes run through the sexes.
Thus, two men together, by virtue of being men (and having nothing to do with gayness), would not actually end up working a similar socialization process that would be found with a woman.
Indeed one can imagine the construct that is marriage will end up rather stretched in terms of what is then permissible or acceptable.
Reading a lot of hog wash here. Equality -- meaning a world where folks are equal -- would dictate that two folks who love one another, who are willing to commit to one another -- should have the right to a legal union. It's a contract, a social contract for running the financial unit of a family.
The lexicon of the word marriage is, in this context, a moot point. Moot -- now means meaningless -- used to be the point of a community gathering. Words change with use, just like our notions of equalityl. We're still perfecting those notions. But the march toward equality for blacks, for women, for voting rights, for gays, seems to be fought all too often in the minutia of word meanings. And when the words win out over people's rights, it's always a step backward, always a mistake.
And it's just silly. Just as silly as suggesting that heterosexual couples should be denied the rights of marriage because some will get divorced or some won't have children. Maybe the real solution for all this silliness is to suggest no one can be "married" unless they have children. No one can be married unless they have property. No one can be married unless they prove they're fertile and willing to reproduce. No one can get married unless a priest approves it.
The real threat to marriage is divorce. It's poverty. It's our longer life spans. Our carelessness in entering into marriage contracts. But it isn't gays.
Leave others alone, tend to your own marriage and your own beliefs. That's conservative. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's that simple.
zic,
"Equality -- meaning a world where folks are equal -- "
There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor is there ever likely to be "a world where folks are equal". A world in which all have equal rights, equal opportunity, equal protection under the law remains a major challenge. Some countries, our included, get close; others lack even the aspiration. (Try being openly gay/lesbian in a Muslim country, such as Iran.)
Equality, as you mean it, requires all that plus equal effort, equal dedication, etc. Ain't happenin', now or any time in the forseeable future. Even if you could wave your magic wand and make everyone completely equal (as you mean the term), that condition would not last more than a few milliseconds before someone overachieved and someone else slacked off. Not only is equality of outcomes implausible, it is also undesirable.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm
Why wouldn't kids absorb the norm: "if you're straight you get married, if you're gay you don't"?
Does the Brown v. Board ruling that 'separate' is inherently not 'equal' apply to the idea that civil unions can be separate from but equal to marriage? I know it's not a perfect parallel but am curious to read others' thoughts.
Everyone is plenty clear on what we should do. We want a peaceful world--and when someone tells us we are not contributing to that peace, by objecting to those who are attempting to drastically modify a historical, morality issue--we must stop?
Not even this well-articulated article is enough to convince me that it is what the Lord would have us do. The REAL TRAGEDY, is in the comment that "most people under 30 support gay marriage". Why? Society is fickle, carnal, sensual, and (you guessed it) devilish. You can't trust us to make the best, right decision.
Answer the question as to WHY we are even here on this floating rock, and the answer becomes clear (at-least to me).
- We are placed here by a loving Father in Heaven, to try us--and see just what we are made of.
- He gave us rules, laws and commandments like any loving parent--hoping that we will comply.
- He also allows us to be tempted in a million different ways, again--to see what we are made of.
- He allows us to choose our decisions, but not choose the consequences.
Please don't be fooled. It is not about peace, it is not about allowing, and embracing a loving relationship without being judgmental. It is about following the rules, and accepting the consequences.
Here is my answer to your question. If my 8-year old goes to play at the house of a lesbian couple, or an unmarried couple, or a violent couple, a drug-dealing couple, an embezzling couple or any others that are not following the commandments--I MUST teach my children that they are not following the rules from our Father, that we all are tempted to make the wrong choice, and that our Father-In-Heaven will be responsible for the consequences. In the meantime, I will love and care for the individuals, but will be undying in my non-support for their inappropriate choices.
I know. I know. I am called a hate-monger. But consider this. Today the country is appalled at the FLDS child-bride situation. However, if it were 2 14-year olds making babies--that is OK.
Why do you think that it is important to have outside guidance for society? Diety? What value do they add?
I think that they add the greatest value. Eternal perspective.
zic - Leave others alone, tend to your own marriage and your own beliefs. That's conservative. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's that simple.
That tends to break down when kids are involved. And marriage has the potential to involve kids. Which is why we're having this debate.
Why no "gay marraige":
1: Children are better off having "parents" of opposite sexes. Men and women are different, they have different strengths, different weaknesses. If you grow up with a mother and a fater, you learn how to deal with both men and women. You don't, you don't. So you cripple children by giving them "parents" that are of the same sex.
2: Gay couples are unlikely to be producing new children. Thus they aren't contributing to our future in the same way heterosexual couples do. Since they don't give us the same benefits, why should they get the same benefits?
3: Gay couples are different from heterosexual couples. Why should we be forced to lie, and pretend they aren't?
Gay/lesbian civil unions lack procreative potential and thus cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage, no matter how fervently their participants might wish otherwise.
While "separate" may be inherently not equal, "together" is also inherently not equal. That fact is proven every day in classrooms across the country with regard to Brown v. Board.
Judge us not by our accomplishments, but by our intentions.
Considering that children raised by gay parents tend to do better in school and be healthier emotionally (being allowed to express themselves more, experiment more with different interests, allowed to be artistic if male or a tomboy if a girl, etc.) than children raised by straight parents, I'm not sure conservatives actually want to have this conversation. The only debate is over whether gay marriage will become the norm nationwide between the next 10 or 40 years. For my generation, the debate is done. If you're against it, you're a bigot and you will be looked on the same as the people against allowing legalized interracial marriage (and I say that as a child of an interracial marriage whose parents are still together in a state that allows gay marriage). Deal with it.
"There's strong evidence of traditions within Judaism and Christianity actually being more opposed to the 'property' oriented view of women prevalent in their surrounding society, recognizing female choice in opposing marriages, opposing child marriages and so forth. I mean, look at the Song of Solomon; "I am my beloved and my beloved is mine."
Does that sound like 'property' rights?
Posted by Ryan W. | May 28, 2008 9:41 AM"
Look at how women's lives were actually lived throughout much of the history of Christian Europe (since there was no Jewish state until this past century that could pass laws based on Jewish values, there is no way to do a real comparison in Jewish history). Women were property of the husband's family. That's why there was a dowery. If cultures based their treatment of women completely on religious texts, the Islamic world would probably be the most feminist or among the most feminist while Israel would be probably the most sexist. Instead, Israel is a lot more feminist than Saudi Arabia. What matters is actual history and society, not a line in a text. After all, the nuclear family as we know it today is very much a product of the 20th century.
"Gay/lesbian civil unions lack procreative potential and thus cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage, no matter how fervently their participants might wish otherwise."
Straight rape can lead to procreation. That is why either St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas (I can't remember which) felt that rape was a lesser crime than masturbation: conception. Is a loving relationship between two men or two women actually inferior to rape just because of the possibility of procreation? Is a straight marriage in which at least one spouse is infertile inferior to one between to fertile people? Is a loveless marriage with lots of children superior to a loving marriage where the couple chooses not to have children? Is a loving marriage in which the children are adopted inferior to a loveless marriage with biological children? Why does anyone else have to share your made-up metric? Even more important, why should the state adopt such a metric?
Bah.
"Marriage" is a religious consideration. The State has laws using the word primarily because when the laws were written "everyone knows" what it meant - just as everyone knew, for example, that North America north of Massachusetts (later, Maine) and west of the Alleghanies to the far side of the Mississipi belonged to France, and that travelling more than twenty miles per hour would kill you because you would be unable to draw breath. Allowing the State to issue its paper to same-sex partners does not mean that, say, the Roman Catholic Church would have to perform a "marriage" in such cases any more than it is required to allow a Shinto priest to pass out Communion wafers.
What the State has is a recorded certificate of cohabitation. I have looked at some of the laws in my State, and as best I can tell over ninety per cent would not be altered by substituting "Civil Union" for marriage.
As with the dog, calling the State process "marriage" does not alter the relationship.
What it does do is allow one member of a "Marriage/Civil Union" to visit the other if the latter is in the ICU of a hospital which receives some public funds: currently, in my State, same-sex partners cannot get a "Civil Union" State recognition and thus may not visit. Anyone who thinks that to be a good thing, go right ahead and oppose State registration of same-sex living partners.
Bah.
Reality Man, you sure have it right!
Yes. Abuse of procreation key to the whole issue. Thanks for making the argument so effectively. I actually agree with you!
Rape is wrong. Incest is wrong. Masturbation is wrong. Adultery and fornication are wrong. Violent hetero relationships are wrong. Gay relationships are wrong. They ALL abuse the sacred concept of procreation.
Well said. I think this truth was well-communicated, even if unintentionally understood.
Reality man,
Try refreshing your understanding of the word "equal".
Rape is not a loving relationship; it's not any kind of relationship.
Infertility is not a condition of a relationship; it is a physical condition of a person.
Your anger and frustration are palpable, but your argument is unconvincing.
I hope you do not believe that renaming a relationship between two people of the same sex "marriage" will change the perception of that relationship by participants in heterosexual marriages. I hope you no longer believe that placing poor or black or unmotivated children in classrooms with wealthy or white or motivated children will make them equal, even if it provides them with more equal opportunities.
Judge us not by our accomplishments, but by our intentions.
If cultures based their treatment of women completely on religious texts, the Islamic world would probably be the most feminist or among the most feminist while Israel would be probably the most sexist.
I never claimed that traditional religions were not sexist. I claimed that women had certain rights within them, and thus were not simply property. In some cases, an offense against a woman is considered an offense against her husband or father, granted. There is not the modern notion of individualism or autonomy in many cases. But there is the notion of mutual responsibility, agency and humanity between the sexes.
Women were property of the husband's family. That's why there was a dowery.
If I have a car and it is valuable property and nothing else, why would I pay you to take it?
reality Man - Women were property of the husband's family. That's why there was a dowery.
If I have a car and it is valuable property and nothing else, why would I pay you to take it?
I love the argument that (heterosexual) marriage socializes the male and that the lack of that socialization will lead to "wild and boorish" men. Have you EVER met a gay male couple?
Wild and boorish???
Re: The thing that socializes a man, or makes him less wild, or less boorish, or less promiscuous, is not marriage.
Human beings (men and women both) are socialized by a whole range of influences, beginning with their parents of course. The point of socialization is to fit a person into society so they are not just an isolated individual (or worse, a sociopath). Women are hardly the only ones who do that job, though they do matter. However, very few men, gay or not, live in a female-free environemnt and almost everyone was brought up by a mother, or mother-substitute. Most of us have had female teachers too, along with sisters, aunts, grandmothers, female doctors and nurses, bosses, co-workers, etc. So I don't think there's any danger that gay men with lack some crucial feminine influence on their character.
Re: Does the Brown v. Board ruling that 'separate' is inherently not 'equal' apply to the idea that civil unions can be separate from but equal to marriage?
No, because the discrimination is meaningful only if you incorporate the religious definitions of marriage into the legal institution. And I don't think we want to do that. Civil magistrates do not adnminister sacraments after all. Shorn of the religious dimension, "marriage" and "civil union" are the same thing.
Re: I MUST teach my children that they are not following the rules from our Father
There are only two such rules: to love God, and love other people. And whenever you act in a way that denies that God IS love, as you do here, you are transgressing those.
Re: Children are better off having "parents" of opposite sexes.
Gay marriage does not alter that. We should have a debate on gay adoptions is this is the principle concern.
Re: Gay couples are unlikely to be producing new children.
So what? We do not ban people who are unable or unwilling to have children from marriage.
Re: Gay couples are different from heterosexual couples.
Everybody is different from everbody else: that's part of what being human is all about. Nevertheless we have all sorts of laws, institutions etc. that treat us as equivalent. Are all those things lies?
Re: Look at how women's lives were actually lived throughout much of the history of Christian Europe
Um, yes, far from ideal-- but better than pretty much anywhere else in the civilized world.
Re: Women were property of the husband's family.
No they weren't (and that goes back to Roman times, not just Christian times). Could they be bought and sold? Inherited? Seized for debt? They were not property. Second class citizens, yes, with much injustice in that. But they were never owned. Compare their situation with slavery, where actual human property did exist.
Re: currently, in my State, same-sex partners cannot get a "Civil Union" State recognition and thus may not visit.
Huh? No law forbids hospitals from allowing a domestic partner to visit. Most do, though possibly some religious ones may not. Hospitals are extremely sensitive to bad publicity and controversy.
"A civil union guarantees equality; gay "marriage" seeks identity." Freedom, Soar!
TR: Exactly. Although I can see why "civil union" might be too clinical/business sounding. Possibly it could be called a "conjugal union." "Conjugal" refers merely to the uniting element of marriage, unlike "Matrimony" which refers to motherhood.
"Consider how often the earliest gay Christians got married to each other" Reality Man
TR: This is based on an interpretation of Christian history that's not widely accepted. Even going by it "Adelphopoiesis" was a different ceremony than marriage.
"won't be trained to view civil unions as the full, legal equivalent of marriage, and many businesses behave that way, too." by Brittain33
TR: This is a matter for lawyers, which should be able to be dealt with now. (Besides which I'd guess these groups wouldn't recognize a SSM either)
"in what sense does the Catholic Church recognize a civil ceremony or, say, a Mormon wedding?" B33
TR: If both are Mormons it's valid for them. Although yes performing any civil marriage can be an encouragement for people to live in sin. So, ideally, Catholics should not be justices of the peace now.
However this is a separate issue. I wouldn't have any interest in making the Catholic religious view of marriage the state's view.
Ed Reid,
Gay/lesbian civil unions lack procreative potential and thus cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage,
Heterosexual marriages involving an infertile partner have no more "procreative potential" than a same-sex civil union, so the lack of "procreative potential" obviously doesn't prevent a union from being "equal to heterosexual marriage." If you truly believe that marriage should be reserved exclusively for couples with "procreative potential" then you should be campaigning for reforms to exclude from marriage heterosexual couples that lack that potential due to age, illness or choice (e.g., having a vasectomy).
"Does the Brown v. Board ruling that 'separate' is inherently not 'equal' apply to the idea that civil unions can be separate from but equal to marriage?"
TR: The most important thing, for me, on this is that Brown was not referring to gender/sex. We have a Women's NBA and a Men's NBA. We have women's restrooms and men's restrooms. Brown doesn't say the sexes can never be separate or serve different roles in a marriage.
Race is different than sex. Sex is a basic chromosomal difference that effects how one goes to the toilet, what amount of weight they can lift, and what role they have in procreation. Hence women and men's sports can be separate; the restrooms can be separate, and the attire in a wedding is usually separate.
"Considering that children raised by gay parents tend to do better in school and be healthier emotionally"
TR: I really doubt this is true, but if it were true it'd be because gay couples tend to be wealthier and better educated than average straight couples. (Poorer gays tend to stay closeted)
Thomas R,
Merely pointing out that race and sex (gender) are "different" (and both groups involve genes, by the way) does not explain why that difference is relevant to the issue of civil marriage. If "civil unions" would not have been a fair alternative to full marriage rights for interracial couples, why are they a fair alternative to full marriage rights for same-sex couples?
I don't think you'd have much trouble seeing the injustice of denying marriage to interracial couples, and insisting that they should be content with the "separate but equal" institution of "civil unions" instead, on the grounds that they are "different" from same-race couples. What relevant difference do you claim there is between between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that justifies excluding same-sex ones from marriage?
I am in favor of formal state recognition of gay marriage, and would vote for it in a referendum, but everyone is overlooking the obvious libertarian issue. Gay activists want "gay marraige" so that they can use state power to compel people and insitutions that don't want to recognize gay marriages to treat gay married couples as straight married couples.
My libertarian solution would be that the Federal Government would recognize gay marriages for all Federal purposes (benefits, taxes, etc.), and would recognize in law that organizations could recognize "gay marriage" as marriage or not, as long as they announced their position and were consistent.
I know that just about everybody would hate that (because no one gets to use the Government to force opponents to do what they want--everyone can only get what they want through voluntary persuasion).
A marriage is a man and a woman, not two women. There is no substitute for a normal family; children need what only the union of the sexes can bring. They need a male rolemodel, and a female rolemodel. They need their natural parents.
As a society, we must reject gay marriage. To accept this is to put real marriage on the same moral plain as homosexuality, single-parenthood, or any other arrangement you can think of. "It's all good" must not be our policy. Instead we must be absolutely biased in favor of a man and a woman legally bound in a lifelong commitment to each other and their children.
We can't just roll the dice and hope that social experiments like these work. They never do. Civilization is based on real marriage; without it we never would have crawled out of our huts.
By embracing this, we will forever diminish our society, and rob our children of their right to grow up in normal, strong families.
I have a feeling that allowing same-sex marriage will not change gay (male) promiscuity; rather, same-sex marriage will simply be less likely to require monogamy (for male homosexual couples, anyway). Also likely, it will likely reduce the association of marriage with monogamy in general.
I have a feeling that allowing same-sex marriage will not change gay (male) promiscuity; rather, same-sex marriage will simply be less likely to require monogamy (for male homosexual couples, anyway). Also likely, it will likely reduce the association of marriage with monogamy in general.
If traditional marriage reduces promiscuity among men, why wouldn't same-sex marriage have the same effect? Gay men don't like their spouses cheating on them any more than straight women do. In fact, there is evidence that men are less tolerant of cheating by their sexual partners than women are. And if women are more inclined to monogamy than men, lesbian marriage should increase the association of marriage with monogamy.
Not normal,
Your post is one unfounded assertion after another. Let's take the first paragraph:
There is no substitute for a normal family; children need what only the union of the sexes can bring. They need a male rolemodel, and a female rolemodel. They need their natural parents.
There is no evidence that children do any better with a male parent and a female parent than with two male parents or two female parents. There is also no evidence that children "need" their "natural parents." Millions of adopted children flourish with parents to whom they have no "natural" (biological) connection.
"Merely pointing out that race and sex (gender) are "different" (and both groups involve genes, by the way)" Mixner.
TR: I think I was quite clear that I meant "different in a fundamental way that is very unlike race." I gave specific examples to explain that. If all you see is "merely pointing out" well then maybe the problem is yours. Still I'll reiterate.
Sex is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT in terms of law and biology than race. Being black does not give you a different chromosome. It does not effect how ones urinates or copulates. If Brown meant that "separate but equal" is wrong for sex as well then
1: We could not have separate bathrooms for men and women. After all we do not have separate bathrooms for race.
2: It would be unacceptable to have a men's NBA and a women's NBA. All sporting events would need to be unisex.
Sex is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT in terms of law and biology than race. Interracial marriage is allowed even in the Bible. Of the original thirteen states the following always allowed interracial marriage.
Connecticut
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Sex is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT in terms of law and biology than race. That's my position. Hopefully this makes it clearer to you.
"There is no evidence that children do any better with a male parent and a female parent than with two male parents or two female parents." Mixner
TR: Studies are new and somewhat proned to selection bias. Right now the same-sex couples choosing to raise kids tend to be people unusually motivated to be good parents and also people with a higher per-capita income or education than normal.
It's possible this will always be the case and that the average same-sex couple will be childless. Still that's not exactly a sure thing. That said I don't think it's plausible to give same-sex couples no adoption rights. I think what I'd favor is same-sex couples having the same adoption rights as other same-sex duos. (Meaning two brothers, two sisters, or two same-sex friends)
Thomas R,
TR: I think I was quite clear that I meant "different in a fundamental way that is very unlike race." I gave specific examples to explain that.
The examples of differences between the sexes you gave were "how one goes to the toilet, what amount of weight they can lift, and what role they have in procreation." Nowhere do you offer anything resembling an argument as to why these differences justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Simply listing differences, or calling them "fundamental," does not explain why you think those differences are relevant to the issue in dispute. Really, what on earth does "how one goes to the toilet" have to do with who one should be allowed to marry?
TR: Studies are new and somewhat proned to selection bias. Right now the same-sex couples choosing to raise kids tend to be people unusually motivated to be good parents and also people with a higher per-capita income or education than normal.
As I said, there is no evidence that children do any worse at all with two same-sex parents than with two opposite-sex ones, let alone that children "need" a male parent and a female one rather than two male parents or two female parents.
Of course, even if there were such evidence, that would hardly justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Children probably do better in general with educated parents than with ignorant ones, with law-abiding parents rather than parents with a criminal history, with sober parents rather than alcoholic ones, and so on. Yet we do not exclude people from marriage on the basis of these criteria (lack of education, criminal record, history of alcohol abuse, etc.) or any other criteria that might reasonably be expected to influence the welfare of any children the marriage produces. So this is yet another utterly irrelevant point.
Maybe I see, Mixner. Possibly you just didn't understand the context.
I was responding to "Does the Brown v. Board ruling that 'separate' is inherently not 'equal' apply to the idea that civil unions can be separate from but equal to marriage?"
"Brown vs Board" was about education, but also relates to segregation generally. Either way segregation by sex is allowed. We have men's and women's restrooms. We also have women's schools and classes. So "Brown" is not relevant to this issue because it was dealing with racial segregation alone.
More relevant would be "Loving vs Virginia", but again what it's rejecting is White Supremacy and Racial separatism. It says little or nothing about gender.
The fundamental differences in sex are relevant to marriage. I could list all the many reasons why, but the heart of it was just that we do recognize gender/sex differences.
"this is yet another utterly irrelevant point." Mixner
TR: This is an interesting approach I've seen on occasion.
Yours is the new idea. It's the one that did not exist in any nation until a few years ago. However rather than trying to be convincing it's valid you seem to be starting with the assumption it is and then arguing from that superiority. Therefore denial of it is like denial of any other long existing right.
In life it generally doesn't work that way. Your side has to make the argument just as Loving's lawyers did. You have to make the case because you're making the new theory. That theory being that a same-sex relationship should be seen legally as the same as an opposite-sexed one. Unlike interracial marriage you can draw on no precedent from any other place in US history for this. For many people your claim is therefore an extraordinary one. What's your extraordinary support? "I deserve it, drunks get it, blacks are genetically different too." Interesting, but not compelling.
Mixner - There is also no evidence that children "need" their "natural parents."
To give one example; The presence of a non-genetically related male in the household (including half-brothers) is correlated with earlier puberty and menstruation in women.
Adoption, while a good thing, is not equivalent to a child being raised by their natural parents. Of course, people 'need' very little.
As a gay man, who has been in a relationship with my partner (who happens not to be a U.S. citizen) for more than twelve years (both here in the U.S. and abroad) there are several points that concern me, but basically the entire argument can be boiled down to semantics.
The main issue is equal rights and equal responsibilities.
If "civil unioning" carried with it the same rights/responsibilities for ALL couples (whether opposite-sex or same-sex), then I would be completely in favor of it.
Many of those in opposition to "gay marriage" frequently refer to the "sacred institution" of marriage. Yes, marriage traditionally HAS been a sacred (religious) institution, but as civil society has evolved in the past few centuries, the State has taken the words "marriage," "matrimony," "husband," "wife," etc. and used them to define legal CIVIL
(non-religious) rights, privileges, and responsibilities.
My proposal is to let the government recognize ALL couples who go through the same legal hoops as "civil unioned." This would provide all the CIVIL benefits (including immigration, taxation, automatic next-of-kin status, and all other of the 1,093 federally-recognized rights and responsibilities) that "marriage" currently receives.
Then, if the couple so chose, they could get "married" within their religion of choice (if it permitted such).
I propose that we un-couple (pun intended) the two different sets of conditions that are currently both described by the single word "marriage":
*** Let "marriage" remain a religious-only term, whose definition could be different in each faith. How the individual couple is related to each other and what their religious obligations are under their religion's precepts, would be purely a spiritual matter and would not concern the government at all. (Think, for example, of the relevance in a court of law, of whether a man has been circumcised or not. Or whether taxation status should depend on whether one has been confessed and has received communion.)
*** Let "civil union" be the governmental term of recognition for any couple (of any combination), who agree to certain obligations, and who would, in return, receive certain legal rights and privileges.
In many, many parts of the world, couples go through two ceremonies: one in their house of worship to unite them "in the eyes of God," and one at City Hall to unite them in the eyes of the State. But here in the U.S., in a country that supposedly values the separation of Church and State, we have the two different kinds of couple-joinings entangled. Let's separate them, and allow all couples who wish, religious or not, to get "civil unioned."
To give one example; The presence of a non-genetically related male in the household (including half-brothers) is correlated with earlier puberty and menstruation in women.
Example of what? What's this supposed to be an example of? I have no idea what you think the age of puberty or menstruation has to do with the statement of mine you're responding to.
Adoption, while a good thing, is not equivalent to a child being raised by their natural parents.
Not "equivalent" in what ways? Are you saying that you think being raised by adoptive or otherwise non-biological parents is in some sense "worse" than being raised by "natural" parents? What evidence can you offer for this claim?
Thomas R,
The fundamental differences in sex are relevant to marriage. I could list all the many reasons why,
Yes, do so. I keep asking you to explain what relevant differences you think there are between the sexes that justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage, and why you think this, and you keep evading the question. Simply saying, over and over again, that differences exist is not an argument. Yes, there are differences between the sexes (just as there are differences between races). So what? Why does this mean that same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage? Do you have an actual argument or explanation to justify your position or don't you?
Example of what? What's this supposed to be an example of?
That, all other things being equal (which they never are) adoptive families have inherant problems that natural families do not.
Lower age of menstruation is also strongly linked with lower age of first sexual contact and likelihood of out-of-wedlock birth. Which is evidence of harm from my way of thinking. Feel free to disagree.
so
1. Adoptive families are demonstratably not identical to natural ones.
2. The differences between the two indicate that adoptive families are not as capable of raising children (though better than, say, foster care.)
This is in opposition to your statement that there is no evidence that "children need their natural parents."
Ryan W,
That, all other things being equal (which they never are) adoptive families have inherant problems that natural families do not. Lower age of menstruation is also strongly linked with lower age of first sexual contact and likelihood of out-of-wedlock birth. Which is evidence of harm from my way of thinking. Feel free to disagree.
The only thing you've mentioned that I would consider a potential problem is out-of-wedlock birth. Show me this alleged evidence that adopted children have a higher rate of out-of-wedlock birth than non-adopted ones.
This is in opposition to your statement that there is no evidence that "children need their natural parents."
Even if your claim about out-of-wedlock births is true (you have yet to substantiate it), it obviously would not mean that children "need" their "natural parents." It wouldn't even mean that adopted children would do any better with their "natural" parents than with their adoptive ones. In fact, the reason many children are adopted in the first place is because their "natural" parents don't want them and would not make good parents if they were to keep the child.
Mixner - In fact, the reason many children are adopted in the first place is because their "natural" parents don't want them
Yes. My point, however, was about the desirability of various family structures for raising children, independent of individual circumstance.
The following isn't proof, of course, but is an attempt to demonstrate a specific causality rather than simply genetic causes, which is difficult to do. That is, I'm trying to disprove that mothers who gave kids up for adoption were simply more likely to pass along genes for promiscuity, with that being the only factor.
Other possibilities, such as stress and sexual abuse are also possible as explanations.
Dr Ellis speculates that an environmentally triggered process shunts the girl towards a particular reproductive strategy. This process may be influenced by male pheromones chemical substances secreted by the body with the pheromones of unrelated males apparently accelerating puberty development, whilst the scent of the biological father may delay maturation.
Animal studies demonstrate that pheromones can trigger early maturation. ``If you take a prepubescent female mouse and have her sleep in a cage where an unrelated adult male has been, exposure to the litter saturated with his pheromones results in the female reaching puberty faster," says Dr Ellis, explaining that there has been similar results with cows and pigs.
``Female prairie dogs who grow up in the same den with their male sires tend to go through later puberty than young females who are not kept in the same den with their biological fathers. This may also be a pheromonal effect," he says.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16788900&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
seven variables are significantly and independently linked to a higher frequency of early sexual intercourse: single-parent or reconstructed family, repeated drunkenness, daily smoking, cannabis experimentation, frequent evenings out, negative life appreciation and early menarche.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258474?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
"These gay people, if they cannot marry, are going to cohabitate and have kids anyway. Why undermine the norm of married family life by denying them the ability to practice it? Why create a whole category of people to spread the norm of unmarried family life?"
Who says they will cohabitate and have kids anyway? It is possible, especially for lesbians, for gay couples to have kids, but one main way is through adoption. If the state doesn't allow adoption to non-married people, then the bad example you identify would be much less prevalent. Of course some people think that's unfair. But in that case you'e gone beyond the "conservative case for gay marriage". At any rate, it would seem strange to allow gay marriage in order to prevent the bad example of non-married parents, and then continue to allow adoption by unmarried parents (not all gays or straight couples want to get married) out of fairness or some other princple.
Ryan W,
You seem to have completely lost sight of the point of this thread. The issue is gay marriage, remember? So with respect to the question of the effect of gay marriage on the welfare of children, the relevant "family structures" are two parents of the same sex vs. two parents of different sexes. Do you have any evidence that children raised by two male parents or two female parents fare any worse than children raised by a male parent and a female parent?
This is not the same question as the effect on the welfare of children of being raised by biological ("natural") parents rather than adoptive parents or stepparents, although you haven't presented any evidence that children either "need" their "natural" parents, or fare any better with "natural" parents than with adoptive ones, either.
Re: This process may be influenced by male pheromones chemical substances secreted by the body with the pheromones of unrelated males apparently accelerating puberty development, whilst the scent of the biological father may delay maturation.
This has the stink of pseudo-science all over it (pun intended I guess). There is zero evidence that we humans react to scent markers as many other mammals do. "Pheromones" are a myth that lets Calvin Klein sell pricey cologne to dorky guys who want to score easily. Moreover, for most of history children were routinely exposed to unrelated persons of the opposite sex on a daily basis (in fact that's true even today, you know). Upper class people had servants; the poor lived appallingly crowded in with their neighbors. Privacy in any modern sense did not exist at all. Somehow the world survived having children being exposed to non-family members. (And as an aside, once someone lives with you long enough they become family and would recognized as that at the deepest unconscious levels. "Stranger" reactions can only happen with, well, strangers). As for early menarche the most likely culprits are our surfeit of food (malnutrition delays puberty), and the abundance of ersatz hormones in our enviroment.
"Yes, do so." Mixner
TR: The thing is I could so, but seeing as you don't want an answer I'm not sure there's much point. Still I'll try to think of a few things off the top of my head.
Abuse: Men have greater upper-body strength and violent crimes are generally male on male.
Illness: Men and women have potentialities to different genetic illnesses. This is much more true than blacks and whites. So an SSM can be a monoculture where both can have prostate cancer or whatever in a way unlike OSM. The upshot is they can share drugs, but the downside is no one to compensate for any inherent sex weakness of the other. Couples insurance will start having to deal with two people with prostate or ovarian cancer rather than one.
Pregnancy: Maternal/Paternal leave will be essentially different. In some countries that allow SSM both women are to be granted artificial insemination health benefits to make up for their "sterility."
-----Fringe concerns: These are issues that are relatively rare or odd, but may arise on occasion.
Narcissism: SSM allows a person to have a partner who is virtually identical in all respects. This is not possible in heterosexuality.
Separatism: SSM theoretically allows the existence of a single-sex world. In certain tribes in New Guinea same-sex behaviors are done by men who intentionally avoid almost all contact with women. For cultural reasons this probably won't happen here, and might be as harmless as monasticism, but still there can be negatives.
In a few days I can think of more, but in a few days this will be archived and forgotten. No response on this is going to be very helpful to either of us. In any event my opposition might not be as strong harsh as you'd think. My cousin had a lesbian marriage in some church and I've wished people well on their SSM. I just think there are valid arguments against it and that it's not the same as OSM. Perhaps just as important I think the arguers for it are often going by flawed analogies with race, name-calling, and petulance. Possibly if they accepted that they probably won't get everything they want tomorrow, because life doesn't work that way, I'd have more sympathy.
An 8-year-old goes to play at the house of his friend, who is raised by two lesbian women. The environment is a loving one. So this playmate, whose straight parents are married, is going to absorb one of two possible norms.
I cannot sit silent while such an affront is forwarded. Since the beginning of this debate the received wisdom among advocates of same-sex “marriage” is that what someone does in their marriage shouldn’t effect someone else’s marriage” . Here we have the (convenient) hypothetical premised on the opposite scenario. That same-sex “marriage” will reinforce a marriage culture by stressing its universality & centrality to childbearing.
A number of Questions seem salient.
(1)When did the cultural left and sexual libertines suddenly become interested in the promotion of intact married childrearing & monogamy? Where were they in the fight against divorce, illegitimacy, single motherhood, and family breakdown?
(2)Why would the child receive that message from the lesbian couple?
Why wouldn’t they receive the message that …
(a)All family forms are inherently equal?
(b) Fathers are not essential or even important to childrearing?
(c) Mothers are not essential or even important to childrearing?
(d)Marriage is elastic concepts were no single form is preferable?
(e) Marriage’s core definition was changed in the recent past and is therefore open to further creative arrangements.
(f) If it is ok to raise children apart from a Father (or Mother) than single parenting, divorce & illegitimacy are not detrimental in childrearing or as a norm for society.
When we try and assert the above points (and more) concerning the effects same-sex “marriage” will have on marriage; we are tortured with a “prove it” mentality. Yet a banal hypothetical like the above travel unmolested in the imagination of same-sex “marriage” advocates.
Not right said, "We can't just roll the dice and hope that social experiments like these work. They never do. Civilization is based on real marriage; without it we never would have crawled out of our huts."
Sure. I'm sure the same thing was said about the "social experiment" of women entering the workforce, women's right to vote, interacial marriages, school desegregation and abolishing slavery.
Seems like these social experiments did work, though.
If you are going to make sweeping generalizations and claims that gay marriage is a social experiment that will never work, be prepared to back up your big words, slippery slopes, fear tactics, and armageddon talk with something more than your opinion. Thanks.
Not right said, "We can't just roll the dice and hope that social experiments like these work. They never do. Civilization is based on real marriage; without it we never would have crawled out of our huts."
Sure. I'm sure the same thing was said about the "social experiment" of women entering the workforce, women's right to vote, interacial marriages, school desegregation and abolishing slavery.
Seems like these social experiments did work, though.
If you are going to make sweeping generalizations and claims that gay marriage is a social experiment that will never work, be prepared to back up your big words, slippery slopes, fear tactics, and armageddon talk with something more than your opinion. Thanks.