The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Absent this purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution. Human beings are not born as rational autonomous actors, they are the immature products of sexual relations between a man and a woman, and they need the assistance of adults to survive. Marriage exists, in all times and places, to solve this social problem. If our offspring were born as adults, ready to live independently, or if we reproduced through some form of asexual process, we would not need anything like marriage.
Marriage also has a profoundly social purpose. Marriage creates its own small society consisting of mother, father, and children. That small social unit contributes to the larger society by creating a functioning future-the next generation. Everyone benefits from having a next generation that can sustain the society and keep its institutions going. Even when I personally am old, and even if I have not had any children myself, I benefit from the fact that younger people are building cars and houses, providing medical and legal care, starting new businesses, and running old ones. In modern developed countries, the family also saves the state a lot of money by taking care of its own dependent young, rather than foisting that responsibility onto the taxpayers. Thus, the benefits of marriage go far beyond the benefits to the individual members of the family.
So, what did the Iowa Supreme Court have to say about the purposes of marriage? Did they view the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman as a violation of the principle of equal protection? Indeed. As the Court argued, "Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are 'similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.'" If the Court can convince itself that the dual gender requirement bears no relationship to the State's purpose in having a marriage statute in the first place, then that requirement violates the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.
It should be evident that if the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement is perfectly permissible. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose. The Court had to come up with a very limited understanding of the purposes of marriage in order to maintain that opposite-sex and same-sex couples are in fact similarly situated.
The Court enumerated several purposes directly. Marriage provides an institutional basis for defining relational rights and responsibilities; marriage allows people to pool their resources; marriage recognizes people's commitments; marriage provides comfort and happiness; marriage is a status, not a contract.
But these reasons do not explain why we need marriage in particular. I have a relationship with my next-door neighbor. My family pools resources with other members of a boat club. I have commitments to my employees and business associates. A pet brings me comfort and happiness. We do not need the unique relationship called marriage for any of these purposes.
The Court alluded to several other possible purposes, without including them within its list of state purposes. "Therefore, with respect to the subject and the purposes of Iowa's marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples."
The Court does not seem to realize that if these purposes really exhaust the list of legitimate state purposes of marriage, then there is no reason to have marriage as a distinct legal structure in the first place. Moreover, these are all private purposes, not public purposes, of marriage.
The same-sex couples before the Court claim to be committed and to love each other. Why do we need marriage for that? I'm committed to my sister. I love my best friend. Are we second class citizens because we are not married to each other? There is no state purpose whatsoever to be served by my having some legal statement or affirmation attached to my love for my sister. Besides, who really wants the Court, or the state or anyone else saying that our love is important to the state? People's feelings are none of the state's business.
The Court seems to understand this, for it gently and subtly elides the key issue of marriage law when it goes on to say: "Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples." But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is "theirs?"
This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.
The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to each other. This universal social purpose does not even make it onto the Iowa Court's short list. The reason should be obvious: opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage. If the Court found that attaching children to their parents and parents to one another is a purpose of marriage, they would be unable to sustain their claim that man woman marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
Society needs marriage because children have rights to care from their parents, rights which they can not defend on their own. Societies create marriage to pro-actively protect the legitimate entitlements of children, and to provide for the future of the society. According to the Supreme Court of Iowa, these provisions for children are no longer the purpose of marriage. We are left to guess as to how this truly essential public function will be performed, now that the Court has surreptitiously removed it from the list of marriage's jobs.
Iowa is a relatively homogenous and prosperous state. This newly created lacuna in the purposes of the law may not harm Iowa much at first. But other states have more diversity of opinion and practice about socially acceptable behavior, as well as greater economic and social stresses on married life and childrearing. In those states, the cost of redefining marriage is likely to be more pronounced and immediate.
In sum, the Court has elevated the private, inessential purposes of marriage to the highest point in the hierarchy of values of marriage. Given this new understanding, neither the longevity of marriage, nor fidelity within marriage can remain as important values. By the time the opponents of conjugal marriage are finished with their redefinitions, marriage will be little more than a five-year renewable-term contract. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be nothing but a couple of individuals, loosely stapled together by the state.
Advocates of natural marriage, as opposed to genderless marriage, believe that society needs marriage to be a child-centered, gender-based social institution. We have been arguing all along that same-sex "marriage" will be a gender-neutral institution, in which children are only a peripheral concern. When the Supreme Court of Iowa established same-sex "marriage" by judicial decree, they proved our point for us.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage.
266 Comments
Again, wow. This is such balderdash, one barely knows where to begin. First, does Dr. Morse recognize that marriage has as long and varied a history as any other social convention? In other words, Morse assumes that marriage has *always* been monogamous and concerned with the raising of children. That's an interesting premise--one parroted left, right and center by so-called advocates for (heterosexual) marriage--however, it's parroted without one scintilla of proof that marriage has *always* been about this alleged production and raising of children. Of course, this begs the question of dowries, polygamy and the like.
Further, if we were to grant Morse (and Brown and the rest of NOM) this argument, then they still haven't shown how the inclusion of gays and lesbians as part of conventional descriptions and definitions of marriage somehow precludes heterosexual married couples from producing, caring for and loving their children. In other words, what these people are arguing for is a red herring, using children as some sort of battle or rallying cry (sounds like Helen Lovejoy's "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children??!!?").
Marriage never has been and never will be solely about children. Up until around the mid 1500's marriage was more about politics and business.
As for protecting children, it has been proven through scientific study that children of same-sex parents fair no worse than those with opposite sex parents. In fact, those same sex couples, who in many states that prohibit marriage but are allowed to adopt find that the children would do better if their same sex parents could marry.
The argument that protecting traditional marriage is about protecting the children is a fabrication of lies.
The purpose of marriage changed significantly once the government started providing financial benefits for married individuals as opposed to single individuals. Without marriage same-sex couples are forced to pay inheritance taxes when one partner dies and passes a house that the couple bought together to the other. Without marriage a hospital is well within its rights to bar visitation rights of one partner to see the other due to limits of immediate family. Without marriage a same sex couple that adopts finds it more difficult to pass parental rights from one parent to the other in the event of one parents death. These are just a few of the more than 1100 laws that directly affect by a couple's status of being married or not. If marriage had never become a form of civil contract then this would never have been an issue.
wait.....
This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.
You act like no parents ever want to give up their child, and that a child from another couple is
"quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor". Have you ever heard of 'adoptions'?
So....many.....assumptions....
Regarding Vast's comment that same sex couples are no worse than heterosexual parents, I've actually heard that lesbian couples are far superior to male/female parents. And, also it is a fact that children of homosexual parents are no more likely to be gay themselves. This comes from the comomon myth that sexual orientation is somehow "taught" or "learned" behavior. it's non-sense of course. It is no more reasonable to assume that sexual orientation is taught than is left-handedness. Both of these characteristics are innate and unchangeable. Check out this great article in the New York Times, which says that the mentality that breeded NOM is fortunately on its way out: "The Bigots Last Stand"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
So, Dr. Morse, "The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children" so you have just invalidated the millions of childless marriages in the world. I wonder how those married couples feel about that? Way to go.
'Vast' wrote: "Marriage never has been and never will be solely about children. Up until around the mid 1500’s marriage was more about politics and business."
Why do you want to be a part of something you hate?
Dr. Morse claims that the most important aspect of marriage involves raising children. After acknowledging that gay couples do indeed have children, she devalues such family structure. Apparently, adopted children don't count; Dr. Morse sees no value in raising such children. Her argument is that, since gay marriage can only result in the raising of children *who don't count,* gay marriage should not be endorsed by the state.
Moreover, if a couple is to be denied the right to marry only because that couple is incapable of giving birth to children, then many "natural" marriages would also be prohibited. What Dr. Morse is *actually* saying in this article is that the state should deny marriage licenses to couples who cannot give birth to children AND who are gay. Therein lies the discrimination.
Interestingly, the Iowa Supreme Court addressed all of Dr. Morse's arguments in its unanimous decision. Perhaps Dr. Morse failed to read (or understand) the decision.
News flash: Marriage is an ever-changing, ever-evolving socially constructed institution. There's nothing "sacred" about it, that's why 50% of "traditional" marriages fail anyway.
Oh, and by the way, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Nothing. He did speak out against divorce quite a bit. Look it up. You can find it in a big book of myths, legends and ghost stories known as the bible.
After reading Jennifer Morse's comments, I am now convinced that supporting civil rights for all people is the proper choice, and the right direction for our country. Thank you Ms. Morse for making my decision an easy one.
So the crux of the argument defending "traditional marriage" is centered around children. Fine. But if you're going to be intellectually consistent, then prohibit marriage for the infertile and elderly. In fact, how about invalidating marriages after, say, five years or so if the couple has failed to procreate.
I must agree with Roger's comments. If the ceremony of marriage were only for the production of children. Than anytime a man and a wife are sharing the marriage bed, then it should be in the process of producing a child, and not for pleasing one another. With that also in mind, then a man and a woman that are interested in marriage should be tested for fertility, because if either of them are not capable of producing children, then their marriage shouldn't be allowed. Correct? And what about older couples that are also fertile, should they be forced to live out their golden years alone, because your definition of marriage stipulate they must be able to produce children and a family together? Marriage is about love, and two people proclaiming that love with one another.
Great article! Putting this article together with Bishop Tobin's recent article (link below) provides a great one-two punch to explain just why we should be opposed to same-sex so-called marriage.
Here is the article by Bishop Tobin that I mentioned, as seen through the lens of Fr. Z's excellent blog:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/04/bp-tobin-speaks-powerfully-about-unnatural-marriage/
In response to the commenter who said that "sexual orientation" is "innate and unchangeable," the inconvenient truth is that many people *have* changed from same-sex attractions to opposite-sex attractions.
The following web pages have many such examples:
http://www.narth.com/menus/interviews.html
http://www.gaytostraight.org/StoriesofChange.asp
I just find it interesting according to this article that the only way a homosexual couple can have a child is through some underhanded near illeagle activity that hurts a child or parrent in the process. There are millions of homeless and orphaned children in the United states. The author of this article is so one sided that perhaps they should consider that a gay couple has adopted a needy child and given it the love and nuturing that a normal family would. I find it appalling that you can write something so one sided and covertly insulting and suggestive of the gay community.
If marriage is all about children, does this mean that heterosexual, infertile couples and couples who don't intend to have children should also be denied marriage?
I think it's a lost cause, legally, to argue against same-sex marriage on the basis of religion. That will never sit with the judges. Instead, defenders of traditional marriage should be pointing out the very real danger that legalization of SSM opens a door to legalization of polygamy and endogamy, even of incest. Indeed, all the same arguments that SSM advocates are using today could be used to legalize other marriage practices that we, by general social consensus, do NOT want to see in America.
For instance, many states don't allow first cousins to get married. But in many cultures across the world, this is actually a very common and valued social practice. Who says that there won't one day be a significant lobby fighting for the right to marry their first cousins, or their nieces, or their nephews? They'll have plenty of sociological and anthropological evidence to argue that statistically, such couples are just as likely as exogamous ones to have healthy and thriving children (at least, in the case of first cousins, there is no significantly increased genetic risk for their offspring- and besides, one of the main arguments of SSM advocates is that marriage is not about biological procreation, anyway). Likewise, polygamists could also lobby for a change in the definition of marriage, so that their "equal" status, their rights and freedoms, are also protected under current marriage law.
The pro-SSM argument hinges on the idea of freedom of choice and equal rights under the law, which is why it has been so effective. But everyone seems blind to the obvious fact that civil marriage is inherently discriminatory: it is the state's codified way of privileging couples over single people. That sucks for single people, who I'm sure wish they didn't have to pay higher taxes and miss out on so many perks that married people get. Why should they be at a treated differently just because they weren't lucky enough to find a life partner? It also sucks for an uncle who wants to marry his niece, or a brother who wants to marry his sister. They can't help being born blood relatives, why are we preventing them from marrying the partner of their choice?
If we really wanted pure equality, we would get rid of privileges for married couples altogether, right? But no lawmaker or judge in their right mind would support this idea. So given the inherently 'unequal' and preferential treatment of married couples by the state, the question is not SIMPLY "should we extend those privileges to same sex couples?", but rather, "WHERE do we draw the line in restricting the kinds of unions that we, as a society, want to enshrine in the institution of marriage to begin with?"
By this logic people who aren't able to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I know someone is going to say "well they can adopt children then." My response to that is, why can't a same-sex married couple adopt then? The argument that a homosexual couple can't have children of "their own" and children will only have one related parent falls apart in this context. What about a single woman who goes to a sperm bank because all she ever wanted was to have a child? Should she HAVE to get married for the State's benefit? There would be no father legally attached to the child in that case.
And finally, "I have a relationship with my next-door neighbor. My family pools resources with other members of a boat club. I have commitments to my employees and business associates. A pet brings me comfort and happiness. We do not need the unique relationship called marriage for any of these purposes." Yes, but do you have a single relationship OTHER THAN marriage that gives you ALL those benefits?
Your bigoted coalition of people is a dying breed in today's progressive world. You are only attempting to hold back that which cannot be stopped. Marriage is about two people that love each other and nothing more.
I hope all of your kids turn out gay.
To address just a few of the misconceptions expressed in the comments above:
1. The research showing that children tend, on average, to fare best when they grow up with a married mother and father is so clear and so overwhelming that it is absurd to even try to argue the point.
2. Research also demonstrates that the sex of a child's parents is relevant. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable in the lives of children. It is simply not good enough to blindly assert that a second mother is the equivalent of a father.
3. Arguments about children are not red herrings. Children are important. The same-sex "marriage" movement stands for the proposition that marriage is all about adults, and that adults should be able to redefine marriage in any way that advances their own relational preferences and choices. This is wrong. It is also anti-child.
4. To anyone who believes that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable, I have this to say: Bologna. What about the "lesbians" I went to college with who somehow ended up getting married to men? What about the Hollywood celebrities whose sexual orientations and behaviors seem to change direction with the phases of the moon? What about all the studies that have been done that completely failed to prove the existence of a "gay gene" -- especially the study that showed that identical twins (who, by definition, share the same genetic makeup) do not share the same sexual orientation half the time? And how about the thousands of people who have made the deliberate choice to leave homosexuality behind, and who are now happily married to members of the opposite sex?
The reality is that most people within the LGBT community really know that the "born gay" thing is a crock of nonsense. It is relentlessly parroted anyway, simply because it is politically expedient.
5. Can anybody define any state interest in legalizing same-sex "marriage?" What business does the state have in recognizing these relationships? As Dr. Morse says, we don't have licenses that say we love our friends or our siblings. Government licenses only one type of relationship -- the type of relationship that carries with it the potential for bringing new life into this world. That is one of the many reasons why natural marriage is fully constitutional, and why the Iowa decision is simply off the wall.
6. Dr. Morse is right on the money. Good article.
I find this article misleading. Children are legally tied to biological parents whether they have a marriage license or not.
It is children who have one non biological parent (no matter whether that parent is the same or different sex from the other parent} who often need their parents to be married in order to ensure their needs such as the right to health insurance from a working parent when the biological parent may not have such insurance or is staying at home to care for the child.
I know many very responsible same sex couples who have experienced horror stories that no one should have to live through simply because of this unfair and antiquated practice of discrimination.
It does not do any good for ANY child to deny his or her parents a marriage license and it fact it only creates obstacles for those children that are completely unjustifiable.
The way you describe children of same sex couples as not really being "theirs" is offensive not only to those couples, but to all people who adopt children.
Would you say the same thing about a child adopted by a man and a woman? Or a child born to a woman impregnated via in vitro fertilization whose husband was infertile?
VAST:
Scientific studies do not and cannot prove anything. What a scientific study can do is provide evidence in support of a theory. That's it.
I would actually be very interested in reading this scientific study on the welfare of children in same-sex vs opposite-sex homes that you are referencing. The research I've seen supports that children do better in homes where both mother and father are present.
Somehow, people who support same sex marriage think that the best way to win people who disagree over is to call them bigots, assault them, threaten them, boycott them, and basically cry and whine like two year olds anytime someone dares to disagree with them. I, and I'm sure anyone with half a brain, certainly would never support people like that, no matter what they believed in.
Vast, the reason why marriage in some places and times was motivated by business and politics is precisely because it is tied to procreation. the children of those marriages would inherit the combined business, or power, thus avoiding conflict because the offspring would be each party's heir. it may not necessarily involve love, or even care and respect, but the marriage *still* is about binding a man and a woman together to produce that child. hence, why nobles even in sodomy-tolerant rome must marry even if they indulge in homosexual relationships - which are not themselves recognised as marriage.
and roger, polygamy is quite different from the modern concept of polyamory. polygamy, if you don't know this, is not 'group marriage'. it is several discrete marriages and households, except that the man (or woman, as was reported in ancient india) is the same person for all the separate contracts. the purpose is still the same as 'regular' marriage.
if the problem is visitation rights and inheritance, then solve visitation rights and inheritance. enter into a legal contract to secure it or whatever. but that contract is still not 'marriage'. i really don't know why such red tape is even necessary, and why it must be solved by re-naming homosexual partnerings with a word that already has a quite specific and altogether different meaning.
Roger, the anthropological record shows that marriage has always been about uniting the sexes and bonding fathers and mothers and their children. The core has not changed even if traditions and customs and even laws that surround that core have varied.
As for modern times, never in the history of California was marriage just a private arrangement; nor has it ever been solely about romance and sexual attraction. It has always been both a public and a sexual type of relationship. It has always included the presumption of paternity based on the sexual relations of husband and wife. Still does.
But put all of the relevant evidence aside, and for the sake of discussion take for granted that your assertion is correc. Now, what is the core meaning of "marriage" in your view?
Maybe cite the marriage statute of California or the reasoning of the CA Supreme Court on this question.
If you can't then I don't think you can fairly claim to be as well-informed as you pose to be in your comment.
* * *
Vast you make some large assertions in your first comment.
Do you understand the meaning of "proove" in social scientific terms?
I don't think your over-stated claim about parenting holds up, but maybe you can show how you conclude that somethign is proven from the available social scientific evidence.
Don't bother citing studies. I've read them all and would rather read your own explaination in your own words. Afterall you now pose as someone well-versed in the evidence and qualified to state that your conclusions have been proven.
* * *
Also, Vast, no one argues that children are the sole purpose of marriage. But responsible procreation is combined with sex integration at the core of marriage. Everything else flows from that.
Now, you can do like Roger and assume your assertion is correct -- then please state the core of "marriage" as you imagine it to be. And do cite the legal requirements that make it so.
* * *
Marriage is accorded a preferential status, Vast, due to its core meaning.
Question: What meaning would merit the government benefits and the legal incidents that you have listed in your second comment?
What you said about hospital visitation is false but often appears in SSM propganda. Also, the 1000 bennies is a myth based on a word count done by someone at the GAO.
But no matter, let's assume your list is correct for the sake of discussion. My question applies anyway.
Supplemental question: As for those government bennies, would you exclude any people or does everyone qualify? Why?
I am not saying in either of my questions that there is no possible meaning from which bennies might flow and around which boundaries might be drawn. Your rational explanation is sought.
* * *
Dan, did you intend to suggest that there is something about female same-sex sexual behavior that enhances outcomes for children who are in the care of lesbians?
You emphasized homosexuality.
* * *
The benchmark by which all family structures have been compared, and have fallen short, is that of mom and dad in an intact and low-conflict marriage.
The integration of fatherhood and motherhood is a fundamental principle of our family law system. Sure, some people who are anti-marriage are in favor of deconstructing the application of that principle.
But is that what the SSMers here are really saying when they say that children are not at the core of the most pro-child social institutoin we have? Really?
Typo correction: prove, or proof, but not proove. Heh.
Dan, the research I have read regarding raising children is that biological parents do it best. For this you need a male and female.
Chairm,
Thank you for your excellent retort. I have no doubt that gay feelings about being officially accepted is very sincere. Gays have certainly received more than their share of abuse from the world. But to say that same sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is equivalent to saying that water and whisky are the same because they are both liquids.
In fact, before approximately 2000, there has NEVER been a sociey, culture, country that left a recorded history, which elevated same sex marriage to the same level of legal rights/privleges/status/acceptance as heterosexual marriage. Not one.
While marriage may not be solely about children, it does involve children. It's interesting that the ssm position does not address children or the importance of gender at all. A whole chromosome's difference and no one thinks that this is going to make a difference in how children are raised?
"Roger, the anthropological record shows that marriage has always been about uniting the sexes and bonding fathers and mothers and their children. "
Did you just make that up??? The anthropological record shows???? Please explain...LOL.
No, Chairm, you once again misunderstood my point. It's not about female same sex "behavior," it's about two women being better parents. You want to make this about sex. Why is that? It's not about sex, it's about who makes a better parent, and studies have shown that two women make better parents than a man and a woman. Stop obsessing on sex. You need to get help about that obsession you have...
Dan, where do you find your sources? Studies also suggest that children need personal relationships with men and women to develop socially. Stating that lesbian couples make better parents is false. What can lesbian couples teach to their sons about puberty? They can't speak from experience obviously. Who's going to open a jar of peanut butter if the lid is stuck? Who is going to protect the family if they're in danger? Likewise, women provide things to a family that men cannot. Men and women were created to work as a team. And you're forgetting one thing, lesbians cannot reproduce together. If people can say homosexuality is natural then can't they reproduce?
Does parental sexual orientation affect child development, and if so, how? Studies using convenience samples, studies using samples drawn from known populations, and studies based on samples that are representative of larger populations all converge on similar conclusions. More than two decades of research has failed to reveal important differences in the adjustment or development of children or adolescents reared by same-sex couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples. Results of the research suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes than is parental sexual orientation.
This quote comes from this website:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118584105/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
So, Chairm, I'd like you to present your research showing that opposite sex parents are superior parents when compared with same sex parents. Prove it...
Happily ignoring the troll, I would simply like to condemn the Justices on the Iowa Supreme Court who put their leftist social-engineering agenda ahead of the will of the people. I hope that the people of Iowa will quickly enshrine the definition of real marriage in the state constitution.
NOM, you're letting Dan and Charmin have a conversation concerning research, something which I offer in my posts as well. It seems as if you want to appear like you are allowing dialogue, but you are doing it very selectively. My posts here have not disparaged or attacked anyone, merely presented a study that talks about the well being of children. Stop silencing other and let me into the conversation as well.
Dan,
It looks like you are the one obsessing with sex.
As far as your question, there is no doubt or evidence to the contrary that children do best when the two people who combined their identity to create the child then combine in love honor and support of each other in raising that child.
I note that you point to studies, as if to challenge that point, which compare heterosexual vs homosexual fostering of children.
I say "fostering" to distinguish it from confusing the parenting we do to raise a child and the parenting we do in having the child. For no scientific study would ever find a same-sex couple who have had a child together.
But to be honest I would agree that same-sex parents probably do as well as any other grouping. Perhaps you are the one focusing on sex? Because I know many, and know of many more situations where two sisters, a mom and a sister, or two male friends band together to raise children but there is on sexual interest between them. Why are they excluded from your bandwagon? Why can't two sisters be married -- in your eyes -- unless you are the one obsessed with sex?
Anyway, I digress. Those studies compare (to their credit it is only fair) heterosexual broken families, single parents with live-in boyfriends or girlfriends. We already know these situations do not do as well as real marriage, it actually says a lot that to be fair that is the situation they compare against in designing studies to show such a conclusion.
I love how my comment is still awaiting approval while those that support NOM have been posted.
Jennifer, you wrote this:
The Court seems to understand this, for it gently and subtly elides the key issue of marriage law when it goes on to say: “Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.” But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is “theirs?”
Does this mean that when a straight couple adopts a child, it isn't "theirs" either? Are you saying that adopted children don't count, because they are not biologically related to the parents? That's a sad viewpoint, and reflects very badly on your opinion of what constitutes a loving family. Apparently, grandmothers can't raise their children's children either, since they aren't "theirs." I feel sorry for you, Jennifer. You are apparently clueless about what constitutes a family. It also makes my heart break for all the adopted children, and children who are raised by a single parent, or grandparent. Apparently, their needs don't count to Jennifer? Only biological children are worthy...
Dan you emphasized lesbians and sexual orientation.
You did that, not me.
No studies have shown what you claim. Do you understand the meaning of "shown" in social scientific terms?
On one hand you say lesbian parenting has been proven superior.
But on the other hand you say that it has been proven there are no differences.
And you have emphasized sexual orientation while making both of these claims.
You do not depend on proof, Dan, but on speculation that conveniently and deeply discounts the wide and deep consensual that the available evidence indicates that the low conflict union of husband and wife is the optimium family structure.
No matter the evidence, Dan, you object to the integration of fatherhood and motherhood, don't you?
This is not about evidence nor proof but it is about a principle you wish to assert.
Please plainly state that principle.
Are you now claiming that adoption is the basis for "gay marriage"?
Perhaps that depends on a new legal requirement you have neglected to cite.
Adoption has at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishmentn or loss and 2) government intervention to assign a replacement adult as parent.
That is the inverse of the marital presumption of paternity by which the husband is presumed the father of his the children born to his wife during their marriage. This is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation.
Same-sex sexual behavior is not the basis for adoption; nor of the presumption of paternity.
Most of the children living in same-sex households (the Census term for what are assumed to be households headed by two homosexual adults) migrated from the two-sexed sexual relationships of their parents (usually marriages). The presumption of paternity applies regardless of sexual orientation even when either mom or dad splits and sets-up with someone of the same sex.
So one would expect SSMers to cherish the marital presumption of paternity for the sake of these children of whom most, by far, have both moms and dads. It is just that one or the other is nonresident.
That nonresident parent is not "disappeared" except in the rhetoric of the SSM campaign. The father's parental status is not wiped out just because two lesbians live the same household as the children, for example.
Maybe 4% of the small population of children residing in these households got their through adoption by strangers. Maybe 1% more got there through third party procreation (use of "donors") which meansn going outside the same-sex relationship to become fertile with the other sex.
About 3% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households with children. And a tiny percentage of that small percentage were attained through means other than procreative relationships of their moms and dads.
So when you highlight children in your arguments, Dan, you remind readers of the importance of the presumption of paternity and the rarity of "same-sex parenting" that attains children via means nother than the procreational relationships of moms and dads.
Of the adult population that is not openly gay, almost all adults eventually marry and almost all marriages have children. The presumption of paternity is proportionately more important to more children -- both in opposite-sex scenarios and "same-sex" scenarios -- than adoption and third party procreation combined.
"Gay marriage" does not create the direct child-parent relationship, at law, that adoption would.
The structure that benefits children is the integration of fatherhood and motherhood, hence there is societal preference for that through the core meaning of marriage.
Typo correction: "the wide and deep *social scientific consensus*"
Dan,
What meaning of "gay marriage" would merit the government benefits and the legal incidents that you have listed in your second comment?
As for access to those government bennies, would you exclude some people or does everyone qualify? Why?
Chairm, You talk in circles, and have yet to give me one shred of evidence or valid reason that gay marriage (SSM, is that a play on S and M, by the way? You love to get those sexual references in there any way you can, don't you?) will in any way impact your straight marriage. And, you said this:
The structure that benefits children is the integration of fatherhood and motherhood, hence there is societal preference for that through the core meaning of marriage.
Let's say I were to concede your point that motherhood and fatherhood were the best for the child (which I DON'T, because there is evidence that two women make better parents, as stated earlier), then does this mean that children with two fathers or two mothers deserve NO protection or societal support? This seems to be what you are saying. Only children of straight parents deserve the rights that come with marriage. Is that your point of view? And, I assume you feel that adopted children deserve no rights either, because they weren't biologically produced by their parents.
You people at NOM are simply out of step with the world trend of SSM, which WILL happen in the US. Why do you insist on fighting this, when you are powerless, and you will lose this fight in the end? The gay community is as shocked as any group that this is moving so quickly. We didn't expect it. So, what is the point of your fight? It only shows that you have no compassion nor respect for those of us who are not heterosexual. As you are well aware, young people who are below thirty think that people with your point of view are social dinosaurs, who will soon be extinct. Sadly, you cling to this belief that gay marriage will be the end of society as we know it, and there will be no more heterosexual marriage, and people will lose their precious religious freedoms. None of these things have happened in Canada, have they? Has anyone in Canada lost their right to worship as they please? There has been NO impact, whatsoever to Canadians, except for those people whose lives it directly impacts, and that means the same sex couples who now finally have equality with their straight counterparts. Ask any Canadian, and you will get the same response: Americans that are against SSM (gay marriage, call it what you like Chairm, I know you prefer the sexual overtones) have no grounds for their fears and they need to accept that this will happen, and just get on with their lives. The longer you pursue this fight against marriage equality, (remember it is your group that opposes marriage, not us. We WANT marriage) the more you appear to be desperate bigots who will do anything to prevent those same sex couples from gaining the rights that should have been granted many years ago..
And, I'm still awaiting a response to the most important question: Is NOM a front for the Mormon church? If so, how much money has the church actually pumped into it?.
Dan, SSM is a standard abbreviation for same-sex marriage that's been used by both sides in this debate.
Thanks, Peter, I know that. I'm just giving Chairm a hard time... He seems hung up on definitions and terminology. But, he still can't explain one of his pet terms: "identity politics." Maybe you can explain it?
Chairm, EUREKA! I found the article I was looking for which provides evidence that lesbian couples make better parents than opposite sex couples. The long excerpt below comes from this website:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lesbian-Mothers-Make-Better-Parents-54040.shtml
(Leave it to the Canadians to figure this out first. Since they now have experience with SSM, they can be certainly considered a more reliable research data base than in our backward country.)
Homosexuality is blamed in the western society, a child being raised by two homosexual parents being regarded as an even more unnatural situation.
There are great concerns that the child would adopt the sexuality of his/her family, even if many researches point to the fact that homosexuality seems to be innate, due to hereditary factors or womb hormonal accidents.
A new research conducted at the Canadian Justice Department reveals that parenting by same-sex families is just as good, if not a little bit better, for children when compared with heterosexual families.
The academic research was led by Professor Paul Hastings at Concordia University. Hastings's team reached the study's conclusion after analyzing existent researches about the impact of growing in different family types on children.
The strongest conclusion that most researches have drawn is that children grown by couple made of two mothers or a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence. "A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in 'traditional nuclear' families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences," concluded the research, based on roughly 240 studies on parenting and children's development.
The largest part of the existent researches on gay parents are made on lesbian mothers, actually shows what other studies have already revealed: namely that women generally spend more time with their children than men do. "But there is still too little research, especially about gay male parents, to reach any final conclusions", warned the researchers.
In case you missed it the first time, this is the headline of the article I quoted above:
Lesbian Mothers Make Better Parents!
Lesbians found to be better parents than heterosexual couples are
So, Chairm, I'm a very open minded person and am also willing to view any research you may have which shows that heterosexuals are better parents than homosexuals. Please provide it....
Dan, nice broken link in post 12. I'm with Chairm when he says that you went back on your word. First you say lesbians make better parents then you say there are no differences between them and heteorsexual parents (one point credibility for your side).
Dan, gay marriage IS about sex. It's a means to an end. It's a way for homosexuals to find acceptance in today's society.
And if it's not about sex then is it about love? There's no better way to tell someone that you love them than to file joint taxes or to save money together on car insurance.
You're right Dan. Gay couples will win their rights. And why are you still fighting? It's people like me who understand this and are required to voice an opinion. There is a day when we all stand tall before our gods to be judged for our works. I want to tell my God that I tried. I try to listen to what He has commanded me, which includes not judging others. I don't hate gay people, I simply follow the rules He has set forth. Freedom of speech is our God-given duty, and yours. Stop the name calling and lets more forward together.
Delores, you're alright. I support NOM and I still have comments awaiting approval.
Here is a second study, done in the US, which confirms the Canadian results. Gays and lesbian parents perform either equal to or better than their straight counterparts:
A new study on gay parenting shows that gay and lesbian couples make parents equally as good or better than heterosexuals.
The national study was conducted by Suzanne Johnson, associate professor of psychology at Dowling College in Oakdale, N.Y. She examined 415 lesbian and gay parents raising children across America.
Nanette Silverman, one of the researchers working with Johnson said, "The data suggests
lesbian and gay parents are more responsive, child-oriented and egalitarian" than heterosexual parents.
The study found that the lesbian women, on average, had been together 10 years and had a 5-year-old child, while the gay men had been together 13 years and had a 6-year-old child.
Both groups tended to be highly educated, with just under half having obtained graduate degrees. About one third of the couples lived in urban areas, nearly one-half lived in the suburbs and the rest lived in rural areas.
The research showed that gay fathers found their anticipation of negative experiences had been worse than the reality, while lesbian mothers reported experiencing negative feedback.
"Gay and lesbian parents are functioning quite well," Silverman said. "Sexual orientation is totally irrelevant."
Silverman said there was one major difference between gay and straight parents. Only 15 percent of the gay and lesbian parents reported using physical methods as a way to discipline their children. The majority relied instead upon discussion and reasoning. By comparison, 60 percent or more of heterosexual parents reported using physical methods to discipline their children.
Silverman said the use of physical discipline has been associated with giving children lower levels of self-esteem.
Robert, where you went off the mark is by bringing in god into this. Your god has nothing to do with my gay marriage. I would have been offended for any god to be represented at my wedding. We want LEGAL rights and recognition. That's all. Apparently, there are people on your side of this argument who feel that marriage is given by god. I happen to disagree strongly. MY marriage was granted by the state, and god has nothing to do with it. In fact, France has the right approach to this. Every couple must go to city hall to get married. If you go to a house of worship to marry it is not a legal ceremony. You are entitled to all the religious ritual you'd like, but it's not legal. That's as it should be. I know it's emotional for you, but there are those of us who don't believe in god, or don't agree with your concept of marriage. I say civil unions for ALL, and take the government out of the marriage business. Then you Mormons can have your celestial marriage, or whatever you do... But, our government shouldn't be a part of it... Sound fair?
And, I stand by my previous statement:
gays and lesbians make equal or BETTER parents. Read my links above, if you want proof. I'm waiting for some scientific study that shows that heterosexuals make better parents....
There you go again Dan. Read the last sentence of your post, 26. You're obviously NOT open-minded and NOT open to research. You provided the fact: "there is still too little research, especially about gay male parents, to reach any final conclusions."
Try reading more than the first three paragraphs of a story. Also, try googling the story's writer, Stefan Anitei, and you'll find that much of his work is about the gay community. It sounds like he's a little biased on the subject.
I apologize for appearing to dominate this blog, but for days and days I was the only one who seemed to have an interest. I think my posts are getting through simply because I've been on so much that I'm a recognized voice. I have to give NOM credit for not trying to censor me, and it's especially surprising considering the fact that nine of ten people who've posted have been against their point of view. When do you think this blog will be shut down?
OK, Robert, so provide proof that heterosexuals make better parents. I'll be waiting...
I actually think we diverge from the real topic at hand. it's about marriage, and not parenting. It was the NOM folks that tried to bring in this issue. I'm married to my same sex partner, but we have NO interest whatsoever in parenting. This is for various reasons. But, let's agree to stay on topic, which is marriage. Parenting is an entirely different topic, that hardly interests me personally. Sound fair?
Dan, I said gay folks WILL win their rights and I also said that it is my job to voice my opinion. You miss that point. It is not our job to tell you that you're wrong. It's our job to voice what we believe.
I live in California which maybe home to the largest gay community. My beliefs do not only come from God but from experience. In the second study you provided, they only surveyed the relationships that worked. What about the ones that didn't work. I am a journalist and can see BS when it's in my face. In my experience, I've never seen a gay couple last more than a year. I also know people who became gay then went straight again because they were capable of learning something that the others couldn't. They had more partners and more break-ups in gay relationships than in heterosexual relationships.
And I have the legal part for you too. California is probably going to repeal Prop 8 even after the people voted for it. Where's the democracy in that? Some argue that the campaign was confusing. Not true, there was nothing but "No on Prop 8" demonstrations on every other street corner. Everybody knew what it was but still, our government fails us.
I find it very amusing that the comment I made asking to be let in to the conversation is allowed through, but not the one where I presented the actual study that's relevant to the conversation.
One last try;
To anybody truly concerned about the well being of children, and who has access to online journals, please, look up this study
Crowl, Alicia, Ahn, Soyeon & Baker, Jean (2008). A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4 (3), 385-407.
Being a Meta-Analysis, it provides an excellent overview of the current available research. You simply can not write it off.
Dan, in response to post 33; I don't have to prove anything about parenthood and your evidence is only speculation. Science is easy. Even I can prove any hypothesis I wish too.
Robert, I hope you are right, and that Prop 8 gets repealed. It would make up for the debacle of voting on something that was already the law. If you want to meet a gay couple who've been together more than a year, I'll invite you to our house. And, we know couples who've been together for thirty or more years. Did you ever think that one of the reasons gay people's relationships might last less long is that there was no governmental or even societal recognition of our relationships? It's as if we didn't exist. I myself have hidden the fact that I had a partner (now spouse) just to avoid the discomfort or downright name calling or harrasement that can come from revealing one's sexual orientation. Can imagine "hiding" your wife in order to maintain your peace or privacy? Talk about humiliation. This is something no straight person could ever understand, until they walk a day in our shoes.
By the way, people don't generally go "gay" and go "straight" again. Internally these people are usually gay from day one until death. They exhibit heterosexual behavior to fit in with society. Want evidence of homophobia? Just read back through this blog, and you'll see that people called us "queer" or even worse. So, you don't think there is pressure on each and every gay person to conform and pretend to be straight? Why would anyone "choose" to be gay? It makes no logical sense, does it? My experience has taught me that for far too long gay people have been oppressed by society, and told that they aren't good enough to get married. Well, those times are fortunately quickly winding down to an end. The 1950s are gone for good. And, it is time for gay people to finally live in the open and be who we always were on the inside. It might make people uncomfortable, but it's the reality of our world today. I hope for the day when no gay person is forced to get into a heterosexual relationship in order to hide. It harms their spouses, it harms their children, and it harms themselves far beyond what it should.
Also, I don't think civil rights should ever be up for a vote, period. I hope we learn from this and not repeat our mistakes. Do you know that the rights of blacks to fair housing were voted up in CA in the 1960s and that blacks lost, and legalized discrimination was briefly the law here? Look up Prop 14 on wikipedia, and you'll read about the shameful past of our state...
Robert, you've never seen a gay couple last more than a year? You really don't have to look very far. One quick search on youtube regarding gay marriage or something similar, and you will see many stories of couples who have been together for decades. My girlfriend and I are two years strong right now, AND we were only 15 & 16 when we met, which I think in itself is a pretty amazing feat for just a couple of teenagers, don't you? I'm sure that the majority of those 18000 couples that got married in California when they could had been together for longer than a year. So just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean there aren't thousands of us our there. Personally, I've seen very few heterosexual couples last more than a year! But I'd be silly to think that they can't.
Robert, true science is not easy. The real scientific method relies only on the evidence and is extensively peer-reviewed so that the bias of one researched may be caught by another. That is why a certain credibility is granted to published studies in science journals.
A lot of science nowadays is, in fact, BS, and way too focused on materialism. But true science is not easy, and any theory can be overturned when presented with different data. But you always have to go back to the data, the observations. If there is none to match your theory, than you don't have one. You cannot simply "prove" something that easily. Many of our most profound findings are considered to be theories, not facts. Atomic theory, for example. So no, you can not simple go out and prove something.
Eva, I hope for the day when YOU can get married. My partner and I were together for seven years before we tied the knot legally in CA last Oct. The reason I fight is not for MY rights, but for YOUR generation. I would like to be able to say that in my lifetime I did all I could for the future of gay and lesbian couples. I have no doubt, and Robert agrees with me, that gay marriage will be the law, and not just in our country but worldwide (except in Islamic countries, where it may never happen due to religious fundamentalism). May it come soon, so you can enjoy the joy that I have been blessed with.
All the best to you and your girlfriend, Eva!
I take back what I said about a lot of science being BS, because when properly done, it isn't. It's scientism which contains the BS, and which makes the false claims and follows a dogma as rigid as any religion. But that's irrelevant right now, and like I said, when the scientific method is used properly it simply cannot be used to "prove" anything you want.
Thank you very much Dan! Don't worry, one day I will be able to get married, I live in Canada =) And I am very much am looking forward to it!
So the reason I fight is also not for my own rights, but everyone else who does not have them yet. Because like you, I want them all to enjoy what I will be able to enjoy in the future.
It's wonderful hearing about you and your partner, and I'm so happy that you were able to get married. I just love hearing stories like that! All the best to you guys too and I hope things keep going well!
Thank you for fighting and caring that everyone else gets what you've been lucky enough to have.
=)
I agree with both you, Dan and Eva, I'm sure there are plenty of homosexual couples out there living happily. As I stated early, I was speaking from experience. However, you cannot say gay couples are better at relationships or being parents. Just as there are gay couples who have been together forever, there are straight couples, but there is one difference. The fight for gay rights does not affect happily-married straight couples as much as gay couples. Gay couples need to speak up for their cause while it doesn't apply to the straight community as much. A scientist can prove anything. A gay person a proove their agenda. It's too easy.
Dan, I'm against sexual discrimination against gay people, though nature seems to be that way..lol. I'm also against comparing the gay rights movement to the blacks. It's two different worlds and not close to be compared. Blacks were believed to be half animal and were enslaved.
Eva, have fun and don't let anyone tell you that you're wrong.
Thank you too Robert!
And I'm sorry if I can't off harsh in any of my replies.
Personally I think two people, same sex or opposite, can be equally good at raising a child. The study I presented comes to this conclusion as well.
woops, sorry I meant to type
"sorry if I CAME off harsh in any of my replies."
Geez, I proofread about three times and after i post there are still weird mistakes. =P
Yeah, Eva, Im tired and little drunk still. My proof reading is off too. You didn't come off harsh. As a people, we've made progress since post 1. We disagree on issues but finally, both sides understand each other a little better.
Robert, I agree that we too readily compare our struggle for equality with that of blacks in America. One reason I do it is because their story is an inspiration to me. They never gave up, and although they have legal equality in most areas of life, they still face discrimination daily. There struggle is on-going. However, I do see parallels to our struggle. For one thing, I see how the law gradually started favoring their rights, and how it happened state by state until the feds stepped up to the plate and took charge and granted equality (I'm thinking of interracial marriage especially). I'm glad you favor equality for gays and lesbians. And, as much as people like to point out that we had domestic partnerships in CA before marriage, I'd like to point out that this was not equal in many important aspects. The most important differentiation, in my mind, was that there was no public ceremony to celebrate a domestic partnership. This is a HUGE difference, at least to me. Without a public declaration of commitment and love, it seems far too clinical and without meaning to simply sign some papers. Also, did you know that married people can live separately, but domestic partners must live together? The moment a domestic partner moves to another location their legal union is disolved. This shows that it was never taken seriously in the first place. On the other hand, I bet many striaght couples would love the convenience of instant divorce by simply moving out of the house!
As I said earlier, I'd welcome any research you can provide which states that homosexual parents are less qualified than heterosexual parents. My personal experience has shown me that gay couples who are parents go through great difficulty and societal disapproval in order to be parents. There are no more dedicated parents than gay couples. How many kids with straight parents end up in adoption centers or foster care? Very, very few children of gay parents face this terrible situation.
Eva, I'm always glad to meet Canadians. You all just make more sense to me! I'm a Canadian wanna-be, I'm afraid...!
Hehe! Yes, it is pretty good here and many people do make sense. Of course, like anywhere else you still have your share of people that don't!
I long to move to Vancouver. I came here when I was only five and that's where we lived for a while until we moved to Alberta!! Which was the last province to offer same-sex marriage and didn't do so until it became a federal law =P But regardless, the people aren't much different than anywhere else, it was just the provincial government at the time. And the younger generation is definitely strongly pro-gay. But still, I love Vancouver.
Robert, yes I like it when two sides who disagree are actually able to come to understand each other better. I've had my share of that happening over on youtube...! There have been two people insisting I chose to be gay, and one insisting that I will go to hell. Surprisingly, we all ended up having decent, respectful conversations by the end o.O I still wonder how it happened, but, it did!
Dan, to be clear, I'm in favor of gay equality, however, I believe all should have right to civil union but to only some, the right to marry.
NOM, why are you censoring my comment?
I think it’s a lost cause, legally, to argue against same-sex marriage on the basis of religion or even arguments about the best type of households in order to raise children. That will never sit with the judges. Instead, defenders of traditional marriage should be pointing out the very real danger that legalization of SSM opens a door to legalization of polygamy and endogamy, even of incest. Indeed, all the same arguments that SSM advocates are using today could be used to legalize other marriage practices that we, by general social consensus, do NOT want to see in America.
For instance, many states don’t allow first cousins to get married. But in many cultures across the world, this is actually a very common and valued social practice. Who says that there won’t one day be a significant lobby fighting for the right to marry their first cousins, or their nieces, or their nephews? They’ll have plenty of sociological and anthropological evidence to argue that statistically, such couples are just as likely as exogamous ones to have healthy and thriving children (at least, in the case of first cousins, there is no significantly increased genetic risk for their offspring- and besides, one of the main arguments of SSM advocates is that marriage is not about biological procreation, anyway). Likewise, polygamists could also lobby for a change in the definition of marriage, so that their “equal” status, their rights and freedoms, are also protected under current marriage law.
The pro-SSM argument hinges on the idea of freedom of choice and equal rights under the law, which is why it has been so effective. But everyone seems blind to the obvious fact that civil marriage is inherently discriminatory: it is the state’s codified way of privileging couples over single people. That sucks for single people, who I’m sure wish they didn’t have to pay higher taxes and miss out on so many perks that married people get. Why should they be at a treated differently just because they weren’t lucky enough to find a life partner? It also sucks for an uncle who wants to marry his niece, or a brother who wants to marry his sister. They can’t help being born blood relatives, why are we preventing them from marrying the partner of their choice?
If we really wanted pure equality, we would get rid of privileges for married couples altogether, right? But no lawmaker or judge in their right mind would support this idea. So given the inherently ‘unequal’ and preferential treatment of married couples by the state, the question is not SIMPLY “should we extend those privileges to same sex couples?”, but rather, “WHERE do we draw the line in restricting the kinds of unions that we, as a society, want to enshrine in the institution of marriage to begin with?”
Chairm: read "Marriage: A History."
Roger, was that a one-sentence paragraph? Heh. Read "The Future of Marriage".
Dan, you make too many baseless assumptions about people who disagree with you on SSM.
* * *
Marriage merits a preferential status in our customs, traditions, and laws. This is due to the societal significance of integrating fatherhood and motherhood.
The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for the children were create and bring into this word. This is the first of a set of coherent principles that are embedded in our legal system.
When it comes to adoption, we show preference for step-parent adoption, for example, whereby we attempt to facilitate the adoption of children by husbands and wives. We do so by minimizing government intrusions on the particular marriage and on the social institution itself.
There is no adult right to adopt. Adoption is not for needy adults but for children in need. Adoption does not bestow marital status, but marital status is a legitimate factor in prioritizing adoptors. This again goes back to the integration of fatherhood and motherhood and the extension of the principles of responsible procreation.
Also in practice the solidarity of mom and dad is a very big factor in the well-being of and in the outcomes for children.
* * *
Dan said: "does this mean that children with two fathers or two mothers deserve NO protection or societal support?"
That is a false dilemma.
While society serves the current and future generations best by reaffirming the core meaning of marriage, and showing the social institutoin a good deal of preference over other arrangements, our culture has suffered an awful lot in the past few decades.
In the wake of the decline of the social institution of marriage, society has an obligation to provide protections based on the vulnerabilities of nonmarital families, especially of those with children.
SSM argumentation really boils down to a call for protections -- perhaps a protective status in the law -- when that argumentation is stripped of the identity politics that drives most of the SSM campaign's proponents.
I detest the assertion of supremacy via identity politics -- of whatever kind of identity politics. Religious, ethnic, racial, and the rest. I do so because identity politics is one of the most reliable sources of intolerance, injustice, and sectarian excesses.
So, minus that central factor in the SSM campaign, what is left but a call for protections based on certain vulnerabilities?
Society needs to prefer marriage but it can certainly protect a wide range of families in need of protections outside of the social institution.
The provison for designated beneficiaries has long-existed without conflict with marriage. Some complain about cost, for example, but if affordability or accessibilty are actual problems, then, solutions can be enacted without touching marriage. And although this provision exists across the country, it could be streamlined through the usual uniforming process that states undertake. This is not "gay marriage" for it is not limited based on a sexual aspect nor based on identity politics. It is enacted, and would evolve, based on is core meaning.
Protections based on actual vulnerabilities of families outside of marriage. But not as a preference for nonmarital arrangements -- not to encourage the nonmarital trends.
So it needs to be done in accord with the reaffirmation of marriage's core meaning. That is, given that marriag ehas taken such a beating thesee past decades, we need to secure marriage, strengthen it, mainly in the culture but without legal impediments; and we need to accomodate the failure of our culture to have done this earlier -- we have so many vulnerable families now.
This is the work of generations. No judge is competent to solve these things for all of society. It requires way more than governmental programs. It cannot be done, I believe, without our religious institutions. It cannot be done through the peculiar sectarianism promoted by the SSM campaign.
Aww. NOM doesn't like my snide comment about slimy politicians and their alternative lifestyles.
No, Chairm. It was a sentence (obviously). It was a directive, specifically designed to inform you that your understanding of the history of marriage is woefully inadequate, biased, and fractally wrong. But hey, what's a little disinformation and distortion to a bigot?
No, Roger. Chairm is spot on, and can easily run the rounds with anyone on marriage history.
My take on that book is pretty simple. If I said ice cream was cold, smooth and wet, would I be right? Yet to say that a doornob in February is ice cream would be entirely wrong.
Marriage a History mentions pretty well how marriage has been an institution of property inheritance, but that is just the "cold smooth and wet" part of marriage.
What makes marriage the institution it is comes directly from our cultural undersatnding of the needs for procreation and child rearing. Each culture may approach that with an understanding that property rights need to be assigned to it, but its entirely missing the mark to say that is the real understanding of marriage.
But this much I will agree with, marriage has rarely been the romance centered institution it is today. We have a rather romantic culture. I think romance is a great part of marriage, but I agree it is a cultural understanding of it and not the thing itself.
On Lawn, one of the long-established cultural understandings about marriage had to do with the life-long nature of the commitment, and the culture played a role in enforcing that commitment. That's all gone now.
So now we have ice cream being made without cream. It's really not ice cream, but everyone calls it ice cream anyway, because it's kind of like ice cream.
Now along comes gelato, and you're all like, hey, gelato's not ice cream. If they get away with saying that gelato is ice cream, then ice cream becomes meaningless.
Peter, you suggest that meaningless is a bad thing, right?
If that is the stake in the ground, then, moving closer and closer to meaninglessness is not a good thing, right?
SSM argumentation is about making marriage mean less, not more.
Whatever has changed around marriage, its core has remained the same throughout recorded history and across the anthropological record.
SSM argumentation has also denounced tradition as insufficient, alone, to support a law.
Yet talk of the tradition of romance is prominent in the appeal to emotion that SSMers make in courts, legislators, and other venues like the blogosphere.
So romance does not suffice.
Yet the Iowa Court cited romance as the basis for its reasoning.
It also cited sexual attraction, but your own referenced book says otherwise. Indeed, there is no legal requirement for this.
What is left to distinguish marriage from the rest? Has it no durable core meaning? Is it now so close to meaningless as to be, in effect, a meaningless social construct?
These questions arise from the book your referenced. Perhaps you have considered how best to answer them and have a ready answer for us here.
Dan,
What meaning of “gay marriage” would merit the government benefits and the legal incidents that you have listed?
As for access to those government bennies, would you exclude some people or does everyone qualify? Why?
Apologies for mixing up Roger and Peter in my comment.
A question for Chairm (or anyone who has an answer):
Why do you think SSM is now a worldwide trend? Why now, at this time in history? This is where the parallels with interracial marriage abruptly end (at least to my knowledge). When interracial marriage was first banned and then allowed, it was only an issue in America (unless someone has contrary info). Anyway, I'd like to know why you think it is that countries around the world are finally realizing that gays and lebians deserve the freedom to marry.
On a related note, did you know that Nepal is moving towards SSM? NEPAL, for heaven's sake...!
A follow-up:
Do you think Antia Bryant would have ever thought a day would come when gays would be allowed to marry legally? This woman was on a campaign to deny us housing in Florida, and tried to get gays banned from teaching in schools in California. Chairm, would you have supported this discrimination as well? And, if not, why? So far, it doesn't seem that any of your arguments against SSM are based on anything other than hatred and fear of homosexuality... Maybe I'm wrong...?
Mr Hoh, I presume? Good to see you again here.
You know my stance on that. I agree with everyone that the state we are in now with marriage is grim without any contemplation of neutering marriage.
I believe that as it is now, it is reversible, But neutering marriage because it is already in a bad state is only making things worse.
Dan,
Please see my immediately previous comment for the reason neutering marriage is an action being contemplated at this time. It relates to Peter's comment above.
It probably tips my hand quite a bit to note that marriage has moved from the humanitarian concerns of its past enough to be considered as the selfish "not at all about children and responsible procreation" enterprise that people contemplate today to even say the words "same-sex" and "marriage".
I'll also add that a government that would contemplate taxing us for the very air we breathe (note the carbon footprint fines that England, EU, and others are contemplating) would also want to expand marriage into a regulatory enterprise of all romance.
Dan, I believe SSM is a consequence of the following social trends:
1. widespread acceptance of divorce, which fundamentally changed marriage.
2. gays and lesbians living openly, and winning acceptance/tolerance from the majority of people
3. gender equality -- both the view that men and women are equal under the law and the loosening of rigid gender roles/expectations
Peter, the first describes the change in marriage that took place, only partly.
With divorce came the burden on women, especially, to deal with the responsibilities of raising children. And men were relegated to being just a pay-check.
Children, having seen adult life as an enterprise where they rule, and children have to live with it, have waited for the day when they get to rule as such.
This upcoming generation then looks forward to the promise of removal of responsibility of these shackles of responsibility.
Hence people like McGreevy who divorced his wife and then sued the court to remove his children from his ex-wife because she held to the ideals that people should stay married and meet their dual roles of respect and mutual support for each other.
You in particular lament the change from no-fault divorce? Then why support driving the stake in deeper by neutering marriage, thus removing it from the social responsibility marriage has been entrusted with entirely in the eyes of the state?
On Lawn, so if you think it is considered selfish that marriage is "not all about children", then, I'm sure you've heard this before, but what about elderly couples who won't have kids? I would also say infertile couples but I've heard it said enough times that the potential is there and it's just some kind of "special case", though I don't understand why this allows them to get married under the view that it's all about children.
And talk about responsible procreation? Is any couple going to be more responsible than a gay couple, where it has no chance of it happening by accident? If they have a kid you KNOW that kid was planned for and is wanted, and therefore not going to end up aborted or orphaned.
And it's been shown very well that children don't need a mother and a father, but two loving parents. I'm not just talking out of the air, believe me. I have lots of research backing me up on this one, and would not for a second hesitate to share it. It know what constitutes as credible.
So if a gay couple can give a child the exact same level of parental care as a straight couple, and if when they adopt or have kids of their own they form a family just like any other, then there is no reason to not let them marry, even if you come at it from your stance of marriage being all about children.
Yes Eva, I've seen these complaints before. Thanks for asking. I appreciate that you want to open up the dialog to consider these issues.
But first I want to ask, do you disagree that marriage exists to help ensure children's rights and spouses rights in the very aspect of how children are created and then raised?
You can provide exceptions, but I want to know if you disagree explicitly with that. And if marriage doesn't do that, what can? Or should those concerns not even be addressed with a government recognized institution?
Eva, what qualifies you as one competent to assess what is and is not credibile on family structures?
Also, were you born after the year 1985? Please let me know the number of children who have been studied in the circumstances where children were attained by same-sex couples, not individuals, through third party procreation and not through adoption and not through the previously procreative relationships of one or the other individual in the same-sex couple.
The child population that meet that criteria is infitismal and so any study would very likely, almost certainly, have significant fatal flaws. Also, since less than one-third of one-percent of the entire country's child population would meet the criteria more generally -- concieved via third party procreation -- no longrange studies have been done to produce anything but preliminary speculations.
I asked about your qualifications and age because your remarks on this blogsite appear very, very, very naive.
I dunno, Dan, please tell me the core meaning of SSM such that its distinguishing features can be known.
If you can't distinguish what you advocate, then, there may a phantom trend in your imagination.
Afterall, to measure something one needs to know how to recognize the thing by its special features.
Imagine you are a birder and you're peering through your binoculars at the tree branches in search of the rare SSM avion species with its telltale feathers and features.
Look, over there, that's SSM. Now, please describe what you see and what you say is/are the essential(s) without which it would not be SSM.
Thanks.
Peter, the man-woman basis of marriage is not about rigid gender roles. It is about integrating the sexes not roles that people put on like costumes for a stage play.
Tolerance is one thing, of course, but special status is quite another. There has been nothing on offer by SSMers that would merit a special status for The Homosexual Relationship. Indeed, they haven't bothered to specify its essential features such that it can be identified for what it is, rather thatn for what it is not (i.e. marriage).
So tolerance is not really the issue, in fact.
No-fault divorce is a negative, as it turns ut, despite the unsubstantiated optimism of its advocates a couple of decades ago. That reform has proven itself an apt analogue for the proposed SSM reform. If society tells people that marriage is not about its core meaning, then, people will behave as if that's true.
However, divorce has always been with humanity -- in one form or another, such as estrangement and abandonment even if formal divorce was less common -- and so the aspirational ideal needs to be reasserted. When divorce/estrangement trends increase, greater sex segregation is a direct outcome; and when there are more divorced/estranged people in the population -- and, as in our times, more never-married people too -- longterm sexual fiedelity declines and that produces less responsible procreation. These are the major factors -- nonmarital trends produced by undermining sex integration and undermining responsible procreation -- against which society's preference for marriage has always stood athwart.
Throwing in the towel, as I think you propose, is premature, I think, and certainly not an obligation that society needs to take on as burden due to gay identity politics -- or any other kind of identity politics that asserts its supremacy over the core meaning of marriage.
Marriage as an institution has historically always been between a man and a woman. Christian marriage has been devoted to the protection of children and the property rights that children inherit. I am so tired of self-absorbed adults complaining about their relationship issues and rights to the exclusion of the interests of children, the most defenseless and vulnerable segment of our society.
It's not "throwing in the towel" to support marriage and advocate for the recognition of same-sex marriage.
If same-sex couples are not folded into marriage, I expect a separate status to emerge, similar to marriage, that exists in parallel with marriage. This new status will focus on rights rather than responsibilities. It will be about securing legal benefits rather than securing the relationship.
At some point, hetero couples will push for the right to choose the alternative status instead of marriage. They will succeed.
Eventually, the majority of couples will choose this alternative status instead of marriage.
That's my gloom and doom scenario.
I don't know where to begin. So, Peter if you think gay marriage will make straight people want to move to another alternative, I have an analogy for you. When women were granted the right to vote, I'm sure there were men who felt threatened by women's involvement in something that they had been excluded from. For a time, I'm certain men resented this. Do you think they felt compelled to search for an alternate to voting, since it had been expanded to include women? It seems to me a fair comparision with SSM. Straight lose NOTHING by allowing gays to marry. This is the part that I find preposterous. Do you feel gays are too "dirty" or something? Why will we spoil it for you? It smacks of parnaoia and an internal insecurity on your part that you cannot accept gay people as equal.
Chairm, I've told you my personal "core" meaning of SSM marriage more than once, and I stick to it: SSM marriage is equal in its core meaning to heterosexual marriage. Why can't you accept this reponse? It's like saying, well women can now vote, so this means that when men vote, they no longer have the same privilege. Voting was extended to include women, just as marriage will be extended to include same sex couples. There is no redefinition, but rather an expansion of the legal status to include same sex couples. I know it's hard for you to comprehend, but I view my marriage as equal to that of my parents, who've been married for more than 50 years. The only thing missing now is that we have been excluded from Federal benefits. That's our next fight...
Charim,
I'm still waiting for an answer to my important question. I'm tired of your "core" questions. By the way, speaking of "core" questions, can you answer this one? "What is the core meaning of "is"?"
Seriously though, would you, Chairm, have voted to ban gays and lesbians from being school teachers when this was put for a vote in CA as the Brigg's Initiative? Do you favor allowing gays to be school teachers?
One more thing, I've noticed Chairm, that you tend to write your responses as if you are quoting scriptural passages. Is this because you read your bible a lot? Just curious where you got that from...
Peter, have you ever thought of taking over for Chairm? You are infinitely more qualified, and you know how to answer questions. THANK YOU!
You wrote this in response to my serious question about why gay marriage is only now making it on the world radar screen:
1. widespread acceptance of divorce, which fundamentally changed marriage.
2. gays and lesbians living openly, and winning acceptance/tolerance from the majority of people
3. gender equality — both the view that men and women are equal under the law and the loosening of rigid gender roles/expectations
I agree very much with points 2 and 3. I think number 2 is the primary reason that gays are being offered marriage equality. I don't see that number 1 has anything to do with SSM. In fact, many gay people like to point out that straights have done a dismal job at marriage, and that we should be given a chance to do better. I find that a ridiculous thing to say. I never thought for a moment about divorce when I asked my spouse to marry me. It was about my desire to give our relationship a legal foundation on which to grow, gain rights (I now have health insurance for the first time in my adult life!), and about the tremendously meaningful ceremony we had where we promised our devotion to one another. I don't think a domestic partnership even comes close. Would you choose this over a marriage, if given a choice? You go to city hall and sign a form, and that's it. Where's the meaning in that? Sure, you might get some benefits, but there is no underlying meaning to your relationship that society understands. I can now tell people that I'm married, and they know what it means. I've not gotten a single negative response when I tell them that my spouse is male. I had one old lady who nearly fainted, but she quickly recovered and then congratulated me. She's known me for 15 years, and had no idea I was gay. In fact, she had heard I had gotten married, and asked me who my "bride" was. I got a chuckle out of that. It goes to show that even elderly people can come to terms with SSM if it is personalized. I have no idea what she said behind my back, but she was polite to me, and probably has a new image of SSM than she had before.
It gets very tired to hear the word "tolerance" tossed around so much. I don't have to apologize for who I am, and if you can tolerate me, then I can "tolerate" you. As Jon Stewart so aptly said to Mike Huckabee: "why should gay people have to make their case for gay marriage? It should be a right given to them without this explanation." I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically what he said. And, he's right. Should women have apologized for the right to vote? Should blacks have apologized and asked for tolerance when it came to fair housing rights? Give me a break...
On Lawn, were you asking if I was Mr. Hoh? If so, no, because I have no idea who you are talking about. I'm a white guy, and Mr. Hoh sounds Asian... Does my writing style remind you of this person? I have never written in an alias (yet!)....
To On Lawn,
Regarding your tax comment. Can you please explain to me why my legally married spouse and I got an extra $900 tax refund from the state simply for being married? Why did we deserve THAT much back? IIt will help fund our vacation. And, our accountant told us that we'd be entitled to several thousand dollars if the Feds recognized it. That doesn't seem fair to me to single people, considering it is actually more costly to be a single person in our expensive city. Other than our marriage license, our living arrangement has not changed, so why should the government suddenly give us all this money back? I had no idea you straight married people had it so easy. Even though it would hurt me, I would advocate that married couples pay their fair share compared to single people.
Chairm, two more questions for you (but please answer my question about gay school teachers first):
What is the core meaning of domestic partnerships?
What is the core meaning of civil unions?
Marriage is a man and a woman, coming together as one, to produce children the family from generation to generation. That is the gift that God has given to mankind. As God is the Creator of life, He gave that gift to man, the promise of life, in in Holy order, because He love family and His children are the family of God. Man's law is not God's Law, and man must resist the temptation of sin, that is why the son of God, Jesus came to this earthly home, as a man, to show His brothers and sisters the love of God. For God loves man, and family, that is why He Created mankind, because He loves family, God has given man free will, with consequences, If man chooses not to obey God's Law, he is not in the Family of God. That is why we must confess and repent, for it please God, when man knows God, for man is not God, man is made in the image of God, and must follow His Law, to be protected under the Blood of Jesus, For Jesus died, that we might live. Praise Jesus!!! Amen!!!!
Let the woman and woman so-called marriage stand on it's own merits. How does a woman and a woman produce children out of that union? Same goes for a man and a man, they must first lie to each other, and then to their children, which they must seek from another source, so they cannot stand on their own merit of their union. For there is no father and mother, only a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, no Mr, and Mrs. No Husband and wife, No Father and Mother. coming together as one, to make a whole, total togetherness as close as two can be to create life out of their union, producing children the family from generation to generation. Blood related people, family, Truth, light, life and family. These are the facts of life, the foundation of life and family. Tell the children the truth, empower them with all that they can live and grow and know. For the children are the innocents, and should not be lead astray by one's whom care more for erotic sexual behavior than the truth that keep them sane, free from moral decay.
Lets take a second and review Dan's greatest hits here...
“What is the core meaning of “is”?”
Classic.
Do you think they felt compelled to search for an alternate to voting, since it had been expanded to include women? It seems to me a fair comparision with SSM.
Sure, why not give three alternatives to voting, and then three alternatives to marriage. Lets see how this analogy plays out...
Chairm, I’ve told you my personal “core” meaning of SSM marriage more than once, and I stick to it: SSM marriage is equal in its core meaning to heterosexual marriage. Why can’t you accept this reponse?
So lets restate this as a complete sentence. Dan says the core of "SSM marriage" is equal in its core meaning to heterosexual marriage.
And then gets really emotional about how unfair it is to not accept that question.
I believe it is with much embarrassment at reading arguments such as Dan's that Jon 'terror isn't a noun' Stewart says...
By the way, women obtained the right to vote through the equality of marriage -- its expectation of equal gender representation. Odd that equality produces results that Dan likes, but he attacks that expectation and wishes it removed from marriage.
Marriage isn't about forcing people to do anything, especially those that aren't married. So it is more than a little bit preposterous that Dan assumes that marriage is oppressive in expecting equal gender representation.
Dan,
I have no idea who you are talking about.
I'm talking about Peter because I discuss these issues with one Peter Hoh on another board on occasion.
No, I have no idea who you are though I suspect you are the same Dan at Pandagon who I actually give credit and respect to for challenging the writers there for their apologist take on Obama's stance towards neutering marriage, while attacking McCain for having the same opinion. Weren't you the one challenging Obama for saying nationally that marriage is between a man and a woman, yet to very selective media outlets (like MTV) that he opposed Prop 8 in California?
Oh, and I almost missed this pearl from Dan...
In response to this comment,
I’ll also add that a government that would contemplate taxing us for the very air we breathe (note the carbon footprint fines that England, EU, and others are contemplating) would also want to expand marriage into a regulatory enterprise of all romance.
He says,
Even though it would hurt me, I would advocate that married couples pay their fair share compared to single people.
Wikipedia again on the Marriage Penalty.
Peter said: "This new status will focus on rights rather than responsibilities. It will be about securing legal benefits rather than securing the relationship."
You have just described the imposition of a merger of SSM with marriage. The effect is to make marriage mean less. Folding in is one thing, but SSM argumentation is about discarding the core meaning of marriage.
Dan said: " my personal “core” meaning of SSM"
I have accepted your answer, Dan, as inadequate to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Your goal of merging SSM with marital status amounts to rendering marriage just as meaningless as SSM.
Your personal core meaning is valid as far as your personal choices. But we are discussing the public relationship of husband and wife. This is not a private thing. Society is a party to the each marriage. And marriage is a type of public-sexual relationshp with the core meaning that you have personally rejected.
* * *
Enlarging the franchise did not gut the vote of its core meaning.
* * *
You still haven't justified any government bennies for marriage nor for "gay marriage". If you are defining marriage backward, by its by-products or its legal incidents, then, you are stuck on bennies and not focussed on the meaning of the conjugal type of relationship for which such bennies are accorded.
* * *
As for your remarks about male and female, it is self-evident that the nature of humankind is two-sexed, the nature of human procreaton is opposite-sexed, and the nature of human community is both-sexed.
Marriage arises from this. It is a human community, founded on the sexual type of relationship of a man and a woman, and it bonds both the husband and the wife to each other and to their children.
Not one of us was born of an all-malle or an all-female arrangement -- sexual or not, gay or not, loving or not. We are all born equal, of a man and a woman.
Marriage has always been a social construct centered on the universal need to deal with these essentials of humankind. We are highy social creatures and we adopt to our biology and physiology. Culture is that adaptation. Civilization integrates the two great halves of humankind; it rests on the bedrock of a social institution that influences the sexual and the familial behavior of men and woman alike. It begins with a powerful notion: that each of us, as part of a procreative pair, are responsible for the children we bring into this world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. The rest flows from these glaringly obvious living facts that each and every generation inherits from our ancestors. The accumulated wisdom that is embedded in this foundaitonal social institution might be discarded by some people within a distinct subgroup with a society, but there is no evidence that entire societies can long sustain themselves as viable and flourishing civilizations without this core meaning of marriage.
* * *
It is hypocritical for Jon Stewart or any advocate of SSM to say that no explanation is required.
Once again, the SSM argumentation is not truly about marriage. It is about gaycentric identity politics. The gay-straight dichotomy is false on this subject.
SSMers demand that we explain our defence of marriage. They stomp their feet and whine about discrimination based on sexual orientation but they do not substantiate such a complaint. Indeed, in this discussion Dan has discarded the public-sexual aspect of the relationship type he has in mind when he refers to "gay marriage".
It is not gay anything, accoriding that line of thinking that SSMers take. So I can see why they assume it best not to explain themselves. When they do they find enough rope to hang their own words.
* * *
Dan, given that you have offered no core meaning for "gay marriage" it is interesting that you described domestic partnership the way you did: "there is no underlying meaning to your relationship that society understands. I can now tell people that I’m married, and they know what it means."
You can't say you are "married" but you have shown yourself incapable of saying what that means.
That is a huge problem in your remarks here, especially now that you are pointing to the special importance of public meaning.
Typo correction: "You can (and do) say you are “married” but you have shown yourself incapable of saying what that means.
Dan asked: "What is the core meaning of domestic partnerships?
What is the core meaning of civil unions?"
You tell me. I don't advocate for either.
SSMers in courts have claimed that for the purposes of state law these are marriage in all but name. The anti-8ers in California said the marriage amendment was a tussle over the word, marriage, and not the meaning of marriage versus domestic partnershp.
The questions you asked of me are actually questions that stick to your hands, not mine.
* * *
Dan said: "gay school teachers"
Happy teachers?
If someone wants to teach the supremacy of identity politics in public schools, then, I'd object and would not hire that person as a teacher of young children.
If they nonetheless are mired in indentity politics, but steadfastly keep it out of the school, fine, no problem.
What I said applies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual teacher. It applies also to other kinds of identity politics than the gaycentric variety.
On the other hand, the advocates of gay identity politics would impose that on schools -- and even use their assertion of supremacy to make hire and fire decisions at the school board and local school level. Indeed there is much afoot regarding the professional licensing of teachers in this regard.
Do you favor such a litmus test, Dan, to prohibit teachers who refuse to submit to identity politics?
Chairm, you are ridiculous,
This pearl from Chairm:
Gay teachers:
Happy teachers.
Again, you are playing on words, and being silly.
Gay, in case you haven't heard, is an accepted substitute for "homosexual." If you remember, I had to ask what SSM meant, because you were using it over and over without telling us its "core" meaning.
If your tiny brain cannot accept that SSM is equal to OSM, then I don't know what else to say. But, for the time being, those same sex couples that are legally married in the states that allow it, are indeed EQUAL in the eyes of the law. I could give a rat's ass whether YOU view them as equal, but they are. All the rights are the same, and that's all I care about. Just because you and On Lawn are hung up on the word "marriage" is no longer my problem, but YOUR problem. Give it up already, you are losing this fight, and it is worldwide, not just here.
God your legalism is frightening...
So, you still haven't answered my question. You artfully dodge EVERY question, by spouting garbage. Would you advocate for denying homosexuals (aka gays) from teaching in public schools. I ask for your simple answer, not more spewing of unrelated terminological anaylses: Yes or No, should gays (homosexuals) be banned from teaching in public schools?
Charim, please give up on your identity politics crisis, too. It's really getting annoying at this point.
Chairm, I see you don't advocate for domestic partnerships nor civil unions either. Even your fearless leader, GW Bush favored civil unions... Wow, you don't want gays (homosexuals) and lesbians (also homosexuals) to have ANY rights, do you? You are really are a Nazi, aren't you?
On Lawn, I have NO idea what Panagon is. This is the only blog I'm on at the moment, and it's getting very tiresome to rehash the same old nonsense with you and Chairm. Your obsession with this is clearly something I will never understand. When in fact this issue affects MY life, and NOT your life, I don't quite understand why this is so important and all-consuming to you. SSM will have NO impact on your life, and yet you are acting as if your life will end simply because I'm married to my same sex partner. Were you abused as a child, or something? There must be an underlying reason why you are so passionate in your desperation to save marriage from gays (that means homosexuals, in case you weren't aware of it. Look it up on wikidpedia, if you don't believe me).
I have better things to do with my time, then to answer what the core meaning of SSM is more times than I can count. You're wasting my time, and more importantly and tellingly, YOUR time.
More of Dan's greatest hits...
Charim, please give up on your identity politics crisis, too. It’s really getting annoying at this point.
Well, it may be convenient for you but I don't think he should. He has a point that is obviously important to him, just as your points are important to you. You need to understand how people are right before you can speak intelligently on how they are wrong. I haven't seen you demonstrate understanding what Chairm is saying, let alone how he is right.
Even your fearless leader, GW Bush favored civil unions…
GWB is not my president, nor is he Chairm's. He was replaced by Barack Obama who also believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Then in the next sentence...
Wow, you don’t want gays (homosexuals) and lesbians (also homosexuals) to have ANY rights, do you? You are really are a Nazi, aren’t you?
[...] gays (that means homosexuals, in case you weren’t aware of it. Look it up on wikidpedia, if you don’t believe me).
I find entertainment value in your comedic timing. Thanks for the laugh.
You’re wasting my time, and more importantly and tellingly, YOUR time.
I think we can reach a compromise, but that comes from us understanding what each of our concerns are.
Its just a matter of coordination and mutual respect Dan. You can bring that to the table, can you not?
Even if you aren't the same Dan from Pandagon, I still respect you (and I do mean that sincerely and appreciate the entertainment value in your comedic delivery...)
Dan,regarding my comment posted at 5:53 a.m. If you read it more closely, you'll see that I am talking about what happens if we DON'T extend marriage to same-sex couples.
I think you'll find that Chairm, et al, are of quite a different opinion than I am about this issue.
The widespread acceptance of divorce has been a significant cultural redefinition of marriage. As big a change as it was, marriage has proven resilient. We are even seeing a slight downturn in the divorce rate.
Divorce exposes a flaw in the arguments of SSM opponents. This stuff about SSM means that the state can no longer declare that a child has the right to be raised by his/her mother and father? Divorce has already put the state in the position of putting adult feelings ahead of the non-existent right of children to be raised by both parents.
We live in a time in which a prominent member of the conservative party can divorce his wife and marry his affair partner. SSM opponents have trouble explaining why that's okay but the marriage of a same-sex couple is not.
I have joked that same-sex couples should just demand the same rights currently enjoyed by adulterous couples. You know, every single right enjoyed by any other married couple.
Whew, Dan, you got me on that whole happy/gay thing. Very perceptive. Gold star for you.
The provision for designated beneficiaries has long-existed across the country. It fits the need.
No new relationship status, at law, is needed to provide protections to help mitigate certain vulnerabilities experienced by nonmarital families.
I favor protection equality -- without touching marriage law -- but SSMers want to exclude from "civil union" the vast range of nonmarital families. The exclusion is asserted on the basis of gayness. That does not fit their complaints about denial of equality. But it does show that they are promoting false equivalency, not equality.
Dan your answer on the core meaning of "gay marraige", I take on face value. It does not distinguish "gay marriage" from the rest of the nonmarriage category. You mean what you said. And I've noted it more than once.
Peter,
I'm willing to close that loophole for heterosexuals with you. Is that what you are after? Or do you think that no-fault divorce is a good thing?
Peter that "a slight downturn in the divorce rate" is attributable to the larger downturn in the marriage rate.
Locking-in what SSM depends on is no way to turn around the nonmarital trends. That's why I think your view is that of surrender rather than a pro-marriage perspective.
And, Dan, I did answer your question forthrightly. You may have skipped past the part you find inconvenient:
"What I said applies, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual teacher."
As a reply to Robert about not seeing a gay couple last more than a year...
I've been in a committed relationship for almost 11 years now. Several of the couples who got married last Monday in Iowa were couples that had been together for as many as 30 years.
Just for the record, Chairm advocates for marriage between father and daughter and uncle and niece. He has pointed out that I left that out of my description of SSM. So, I'd like to point out that he left out the possibility that father and daugther can marry because they fit his definition of marriage: man/woman...
Yep, now it is attaching loving parents to their children and loving people to each other. WOW! How destroyed is it?
Actually, same definition, really. SSM doesn't destroy it.
On lawns Greatest hits:
GWB is not my president, nor is he Chairm’s. He was replaced by Barack Obama who also believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
I said GWB WAS your president, not IS your president.
And, Obama favors full equality, don't believe me, go on the White House.gov website, and look under Civil rights. His agenda is to eliminate DOMA and grant FULL and equal rights to gays and lesbians. He merely stops short of calling it marriage, but that's an expedient political ploy that got him elected. You can bet your side of the political fence would have pounced on him had he said he was for SSM. He's not dumb. Why do you think he got elected? Oh, and he also favors the elimnation of "Don't ask, don't tell..."
And, I might respect you, but I think you are a little bit rude, frankly. I'm inexperienced at blogging, and so far is has impressed me as being a way for people to be rude to one another and this disturbs me. Why must you be so rude and dismiss me?
It still seems like a glorious waste of time. I only got involved in this forum because it, once again children, impacts MY life and NOT your life.... Stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. Sound fair?
Charim, once and for all, would please stop using ridiculous terminology. What, in heavenly father's name, is "non-marriage" category?
You wrote this:
Dan your answer on the core meaning of “gay marraige”, I take on face value. It does not distinguish “gay marriage” from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Speak ordinary English. Identity politics, nonmarriage category are words that you toss around as if everyone has heard of them. We haven't....
What is nonmarriage category, please?
Dan, you are misrepresenting. For the record.
* * *
Lines are drawn around the core meaning, Dan, hence the lines drawn against some related people (but not all related people), some previously married people (but all previously married people), and some underaged people (but all underaged people).
The protocols and regulations that surround the core of marriage vary, sure, but the core is universal.
Hence the significance of your failure to plainly state the core meaning of "gay marriage" such that lines can be drawn around it and be sustained.
The special status, with whatever legal incidents and government bennnies, flows from what marriage actually is, and not the other way around.
But maybe the direction is different for "gay marriage". Is that so? Why?
* * *
Dan, what is objectionable about a loving relationship between father and daughter? Or an uncle and niece?
Is there love to be disparaged just because there is no sexualized relationship between them?
Charim,
I can't find your response about gay teachers. Please tell me again,
Do you favor allowing gay people (homosexuals) to be public school teachers, yes or no?
On Lawn, you are also welcome to answer this question, since you are all too eager to voice opinions...
There is the category known as marriage.
Outside of that category is non-marriage. It is a large ranging category.
There is the category known as red. And colors that are outside of that category are non-red.
There is a category known as human. Outside of that category are many lifeforms that are non-human.
Just plainly state the essentials of "gay marriage" so that it can be recognized for what it is.
Gay marriage is distinctive because of (fill-in the blank). This shows that "gay marriage" is different from the rest of the non-marriage range of living arrangements and types of relationships.
I suspect you will reduce the distinction to government issued licenses. Right?
Dan, look for my answer please. You asked in more than one place. My answer is in one of those places and is, in fact, where you have commented today.
Chairm, I've explained the core marriage of SSM ad nauseum... Please come up with something new, OK?
And, when it comes down to it, you will get ten different answers when you ask ten married people (whether they be straight or gay, which means heterosexual or homosexual, Chairm) the meaning of marriage. So what is your point on harping on this "core" meaning of SSM if there is no "core" meaning to OSM? Please tell me what YOU think is the "core" meaning of marriage. You seem to harp on procreation, which is merely a part of marriage, and in now was a prequisite to marriage, as we have seen. But, in this argument you fail, too, because gay people have children too, whether they be biological or through adoption. But, it is like beating a dead horse at this point. I can tell you what MY marriage means. How would that be?
I married my partner out of love (not because our family arranged it, or for property considerations), and we took an oath at city hall to be faithful to one another, support one another through sickness and health. The government, in return, has granted us certain benefits (now I have health insurance for the first time in my adult life through my spouse's employer, a BIG benefit), including tax breaks, the rights to inheritance and common property rights. We took our wedding vows in front of several friends/relatives as way of showing our commitment publically. It was a wonderful day, which will always remain with us. After our honeymoon cruise to the Bahamas, we came home to start our new lives as a married couple. Life has not changed all that much (except for the health insurance and tax break we get), but it is a comforting feeling knowing that our union is legally recognized, and should something happen to one of us, the other will have legal protections. Without this, who knows what could happen in the event of premature death?
That's the core meaning of my marriage. I hope you were as moved as I was....
Gay marriage is distinctive in only one respect from straight marriage. The spouses are of the same sex. Other than that, gay marriage is equal in every respect to straight marriage. There is no difference...
How's that Mr. Chairm? Or is it Ms?
Vast, I hope you have, or one day will, enjoy marrying that partner of yours! Congratulations on being together so long in a loving committed relationship.
Let's face it folks, nobody is going to change the mind of anyone else in this forum. We are simply going back and forth on defining words, which in the end is silly. What is the point of this?
Chairm, and On Lawn,
Marriage has now been expanded to include same sex couples. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it is a reality you need to accept. This issue will not go backwards. I'm sure that many racists were upset when they saw that black men could marry white women, but there was nothing they could do about it, was there? It was reality, it was the law, and it stayed that way, and it will never be banned again (hopefully). Your crusade against gays only points to you as bigots. Look up the definition, if you don't know what it means. And, step by step you are further isolating yourselves and appearing as desparate people who will do anything to hang on to your beliefs. Young people see through this now that they have exposure to gay marriage Iin no small part thanks to organizations such as NOM), and they don't fear it. It is a commonplace thing to hear about same sex marriage, or gay marriage. I'm sorry that my life is such a treat to you. I promise you we didn't get married to destroy marriage. We married because we love each other, and all of the reasons I listed above, and because we believe in marriage. I wish you no ill will. I hope you have long happy marriages to the partners of your choice, too. We are, in the end, fighting for the same cause: to protect, nurture and promote marriage. When NOM uses catch phrases such as "we are for marriage." They imply, "except for people who are homosexual." This is called discrimination, pure and simple. There is no other way to sugar coat it. It IS discrimination. (look it up on wikipedia)... It seems to me that those of us who support same sex marriage are the ones who are FOR marriage. We want to be married, and soon all of us will have this freedom. And, no religious freedoms will be taken away from you... It's really a wonderful thing. Society is finally moving forward. Gays are on the radar screen, never to disappear again... Hooray!
One more comment relatiing to people being rude on blogs. Have you ever noticed that people such as On Lawn like to pick apart and attack any evidence you provide which is from sources that are more knowledgeable that either myself or On Lawn is? I have provided two research studies which show that gay people are equal, if not superior, in their parenting skills. On Lawn, instead of picking on the authors of those studies, how about providing your proof, in the form of research, that shows that gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals in parenting? Is it really necessary to attack the credibility of the author? How about providing proof, so we can attack the authors you choose? I have yet to hear about any study showing that gays and lesbians are less good at parenting. Every study I've read actually confirms the opposite hypothesis. In fact, most studies seem to show that lesbians are superior parents to opposite sex couples...
On Lawn, maybe instead of concentrating on SSM (which I very much appreciate your attention to this matter, since it directly impacts MY life. THANK YOU for all the attention. I feel very special!), you might want to consider working on bringing your fractured GOP back together. I recently heard that if the GOP continues to focus on social issues, such as SSM, it will be the death nell for any chances you have in 2012 for regaining the White House. It's the economy, if you haven't noticed.
The spouses are of the same sex. Other than that, gay marriage is equal in every respect to straight marriage. There is no difference…
That ipse dixit from Dan, in his own way, shows the harm he wishes to do marriage. Anything unique to heterosexuality, like the responsibilities and rights associated with mating, is thrown out the window.
How sad.
Marriage has now been expanded to include same sex couples.
More like neutered in order to be more like the same-sex couple relationship. And again, how sad. I'm not saying that same-sex relationships aren't noble or worthy of recognition. I'm saying that it is sad that what makes marriage particularly noble and worthy cannot be recognized by the state anymore.
I've seen that it isn't so much what they want to be, as what they want to keep others from being.
On Lawn, instead of picking on the authors of those studies, how about providing your proof, in the form of research, that shows that gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals in parenting?
You missed what I said about that earlier, I presume...
Just one of many studies...
you might want to consider working on bringing your fractured GOP back together.
I have never at any time in my life been a Republican. Your mind reading is 0-3
On Lawn, I didn't yet have time to read all of your last posts, but I just skimmed the last paragraph, which validates my point. It says this: This study indicates that, on average, a two parent intact family is the best arrangement for children, and a shared parenting arrangement is better than a sole custody arrangement, i.e., a two-parent family is better even if parents are divorced.
Please tell me how in any way this distinguishes same sex from opposite sex couples. Is says "two parents" it doesn't say two parents of the opposite sex. I'm not arguing with you about single parents vs. coupled parents. This is not the issue...
OK, just read more of your previous post. I can't keep everyone straight (no pun intended, and I'm a blog virgin, don't forget. I have a feeling this is my first and last experience with it, as I don't like what it does to my valuable free time, let alone my pysche..). Thanks for clarifying that you agree that same sex couples can be as effective as opposite sex couples in parenting. Yes, we agree on that, wholeheartedly. Do you also agree that lesbians are more likely to be better parents because they spend more time with their kids? Women, let's face it, have been socialized to be the ones the nurture their kids. Could this be a reason my partner and I have no desire for kids? Or is it that we have no room in our apartment as it is already? I say it's most likely the latter reason...
Please keep up this debate on SSM, it only helps our side. Do you remember when Bush was first elected and there was immediately talk of Iraq being invaded after 9/11? This was in the media constantly. You can bet it was a clever ploy from the Bush admin to keep it in people's consciousness should they ever decide to pursue it. And, look what happened. This is the same with SSM. You have to admit our side has been very clever in this regard. We have kept this issue to the fore, despite there being far more pressing issues at hand. For heaven's sake, we were in the midst of two wars during the last election, and yet SSM was part of the debate as it had never been before. And I so appreciate that NOM is doing it's part to get our message across. With education people lose fear. And, now that young people have heard about SSM, they no longer fear it, but rather embrace it. Ask someone under 25 about SSM, and they'll say, "So what, who cares? Let gays and lebians marry. What's the big deal?" I know this from being a college professor and interracting with them. It is a subject that hardly excites them. But, ask someone over 60 and they'll have a heart attack just thinking about SSM. Time is on our side, and we will prevail. It's only a matter of when. And, you seem smart enough, On Lawn, to get this.... Am I right?
Do you also agree that lesbians are more likely to be better parents because they spend more time with their kids?
I don't know. The second you say something like that, it sounds like there is a difference in parenting. I have a study that shows that diversity in parenting styles is better than homogeneity (not involving gender but the very nurturing style you mention).
I'll have to find that when I have more time.
But lets not forget the real thrust that the people best positioned to play the role of parents are the actual parents who shared their identity to create the child's identity. And like that study, there are many which bear out that point.
And for that reason, loving my wife/mother of my children is easily the most rewarding (though certainly not always natural) endeavor I have been in.
That is why the "marry whomever I want" angle doesn't work with me. I agree we should be in free conscience in who we marry, but our wants wander but the needs our children and the special person we created those children with do not.
Thanks for your candor and also mentioning your own family. We have learned, in the SSM marriage supporters, that personalizing it makes our position far more powerful. When I tell people that I'm married to my same sex partner they are far more likely to be supportive, than if it's an image of two strangers. As I said, familiarity will eventually win us our rights, because the fear factor, as is propagandized by NOM will disappear. And, this is why time is on our side. People have already become accustomed to hearing the word same sex marriage, and it is no longer shocking. Even my father, an Evangelical minister (YES, it's true), has come to terms with my marriage and is very fond of my spouse. He called him his "second" son. I never thought this was possible, but it's true. He accepts our marriage, and is supportive. My mother is yet to come around, but probably will in time. She still beats to the drum of Christian fundamentalism, bless her heart...
Anyway, a question: would you be more supportive of same sex marriage for those of us who choose not to have children in our marriages? It seems to me you have entangled marriage with parenting, as does Chairm. I do not see them as mutually dependant on one another. These are separate issues, as far as I'm concerned....
"But lets not forget the real thrust that the people best positioned to play the role of parents are the actual parents who shared their identity to create the child’s identity."
On Lawn, if that is truly the case then why do we allow the existence of fertility clinics in the first place?
Why do we allow adoption?
Why do we allow couples to get divorced when they have children?
Vast, I agree with you about fertility clinics. I wish we, as a human race, would worry about taking care of the unwanted children of failed heterosexual relationships that don't have a home, before trying to breed more people. Do you remember the furor over the "population explosion?" It reminds me of the current hot topic of global warming. It seems that nobody talks about it any more, but I'm sure it's still an issue. China would do well to promote homosexuality before they continue with their barbaric practice of forced state abortions for couples when they have a second child....
Gay male in a relationship for 12 years now married 4 in Canada. A much better place to be. No chance of this political thocracy.
Vast,
Are you sure you are ready for the answers?
On Lawn, if that is truly the case then why do we allow the existence of fertility clinics in the first place?
Because so many people get married to have children together, but find they need assistance?
Why do we allow adoption?
Because we want to restore to children as best we can what was robbed of them either by tragedy or (even worse) neglect.
The more you know children deserve to know their heritage and be raised by their parents the more you understand there is a need to help children who've had that robbed from them by circumstance or abandonment.
Why do we allow couples to get divorced when they have children?
Because marriage is not about forcing people to do anything. It is a program of encouraging people to do the right thing, to recognize the rights of all involved in our human mating practice.
Hey, you obviously don't want to be a part of that, so why tear down marriage for those that do?
Hmmm, Ms. Carrie Prejean has some Skeletons in HER Closet, such a shame for someone so young.
Sourpuss Maggie Srivastav (Gallagher) has goofed again.
Carrie has pictures here:
http://thedirty.com/?p=157850
Carrie has got some explaining to do…
Will NOM put up a new commercial?
Chairm, I didn't mean to "out" you as a Mormon. But, it is clear that you have some kind of fundamentalist religious background (you can call it your favorite term- identity politics, if you'd like) that has convinced you that the "core meaning" of marriage is to procreate. I have seen first hand that the primary role of women in the LDS church is to make babies, raise them and tend to their families. That is the only reason for women to exist, according to the LDS church. Men are kings, and the women are to be subservient and make more children. The historical practice of polygamy was intended to keep that baby factory moving, and at no costs let it stop. So, men could marry mulitple wives so that they could continue to procreate nonstop. This helped the early Mormon church expand by leaps and bounds. So, you view marriage through this narrow lens of the LDS philosophy of "go forth and multiply." I can't say that you are wrong, because this is your belief. That's fine, but what about those of us who do not believe in the "heavenly father," and are not on a campaign to procreate? My primary purpose in life is not to procreate, and certainly the primary purpose of my marriage has nothing to do with children. However, I believe that, rather than bring more children onto our planet, we should care for those kids from failed heterosexual relationships who have nobody to care for them. If you haven't noticed, there are too many of us already. The earth is dangerously overpopulated. Have you been to China? I was there ten years ago, and I bet the population is even more out of control now. I saw a mass of humanity that makes Times Square look like a deserted town in the old West. One trip to China will convince you that something must be done to slow the population growth, otherwise the planet will strangle, and life, as we know it will end. Maybe that's what you want, since it might fulfill some prophecy? Who knows...? At any, rate, I do apologize for outing you, and just understand that it was because I recognized your identity politics that I did this. The fact that you could not accept my definition of the core meaning of marriage as only a contract between two people with no implication whatsoever for procreation showed me that you were a procreationist, and influenced by your religious dogma. Sorry again. I meant no offense...
Dan, That is the problem with your way of looking at the purpose of marriage, As a woman, married for over 3 decades, listening to all this back and forth about what marriage can be, or is, or should be, I can tell you marriage is a union that brings a man and a woman together to learn to respect each other and their differences, and to complement each other, in the order of God's Creation. For it is God's intention that a man and woman, rear their children, that God has granted them, with the teachings of what God's love is, two souls that were created differently with the blessing of creating life, as God Himself creates life, that is the purpose of marriage. God gave that gift to man and His woman, with marriage as the foundation of that unit, family.Many times man confuses his wants and desires, convincing himself that God would approve, but that is not God's purpose for His Children. It is up to each person to seek God's meaning, His purpose for your life, but He has a set of principals, morals and values that He set before all of mankind, for man to keep His commandments, live a clean, honest and faithful life, faith in God, and His plan for our salvation.
Thanks for the post Jon. I didn't get a thrill from seeing Carrie's pics because girls don't exactly excite me (no offense ladies), but the comments were positively delicious. Here's a small sample:
John Visser Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Once again the knee-jerk reaction of the National Organization for Marriage has shown that it is really nothing more than a group of hypocrites attempting to force their definition of “moral values” onto everyone - except themselves.
The best part will be when Maggie Gallagher (Haggie Maggie)sees this she will undoubtedly crap in her rather large underpants.
Oh, I just can’t stop laughing. The new spokesperson for “moral values” is found to be lacking in moral values.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hee Hee!!!!!
Cutenbored Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I thought she said “no offense, but if you believe in same sex marriage or opposite (?)marriage…” I’m not trying to get political on a site like this, but I just want to say that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. But, I also believe in the separation of church and state… Therefore, a civil union between two people of the same sex is none of my business.
The fact that you could not accept my definition of the core meaning of marriage as only a contract between two people with no implication whatsoever for procreation
Dan, if marriage is only a contract between two people, does that mean that anyone can get married? I thinking along the lines of two brothers who have a sexual relationship.
@ On Lawn
"Hey, you obviously don’t want to be a part of that, so why tear down marriage for those that do?"
What makes you think I don't want to be a part of that? If I were to marry my partner, which we are planing to do, we could adopt a child and as you put it...
"help children who’ve had that robbed from them by circumstance or abandonment."
@Secular Heretic
While that would be incest it is not as uncommon as you might think. While maybe not as brothers, but brothers and sisters. Just look at the history of Europe over the last few hundred years, especially the history of the royal families.
Check out this web site for more information on teh history of marriage.
www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
Secular Heretic, Apparently Chairm believes that it is OK for a father and daughter to marry because they are male/female. You are, of course being stupid, I noted that there are restrictions to the two person rule, but Chairm made no such distinction, because he is obsessed with the opposite sex stipulation.
It is painfully obvious that the people who are clinging to the procreation aspect of marriage are religious zealots. There is no other explanation for clinging to this requirement that procreation must be the core and only meaning of marriage.
Vast,
Thanks for one of the easiest questions I've had to answer in a long time..
What makes you think I don’t want to be a part of that [marriage institution that encourages us to recognize the rights of all involved in our human mating practice]?
Because if you did, you would.
What's your big love of procreation? I can see it if we lived in, say, Nebraska in 1830, but the fact is the world has far too many people as it is, and any intelligent, public-minded approach to the issue ought to at least acknowledge the problem. "Be fruitful and multiply" was good advice when it was given, but I doubt it meant "until you choke the planet to death with your hosts."
The truth is that you have no authority whatever to explain God's purposes to anyone, let alone to legislate your opinion at the expense of the happiness of millions.
Just because my sexual orientation precludes me from having biological children does not mean that I do not want to have children. It does not mean that I don't want to be a part of a family unit becuase I do want to have a family and I do want to have children and I'm very proud to be an Iowan where both of those are now possible.
I didn't choose the way I am. I was born this way. The only part I have chosen is to not live with a lie. I tried that at first, even went so far as to get married to a woman. But there was no love in it. There was no attraction. I was simply doing what I thought society expected of me and my life was a living hell becuase of it. That marriage only lasted 11 months and leaving it was the best thing I ever did. Once I accepted who I was my life became better.
Just because my sexual orientation precludes me from having biological children
You are saying homosexuality is a disability?
I wouldn't call it a disability, unless you consider the social stigma attached to it. It is however, a biological condition. Sexual orientation is hard wired in at birth. I am incapable of having biological children with the person I am sexually attracted to. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey you know what... I'm going to be gay. I'll join one of the most hated minorities on the planet and see how that works out."
So tell me how it is right that I can be denied the rights and responsibilities of building a family unit based in marriage simply becuase my biology puts me outside of the social norm of the time?
I've heard some people say "But your not denied the right to marry, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex."
As I stated in an earlier post, I tried that. It was unhealthy and destructive for both me and her. That sort of relationship does not fit with my biology. Does that mean I should be forced to just accept a life of solitude?
Just because my sexual orientation precludes me from having biological children
later...
I wouldn’t call it a disability
Please reconcile those two statements. A disability is impairment in a way that limits or makes an activity especially difficult. You are claiming that you are limited or find an activity especially difficult.
How is that not a disability?
By the way, stigma something others do to you, not your ability to do something. Stigma is not a disability.
If 2 brothers or 2 sisters will be willing to get married in state where the homosexual marriage is legal on what ground it can be denied by state? Will the ban of marriage between close relatives be used?. But this ban is suppose to be based on the theory that the children of such union will be somehow genetically inferior, but in this case no children are involved. So this union must be allowed. In this case we will have clear discrimination based on sex of the person. If the sex of the participant will be different then the marriage will be prohibited. So according to the legal arguments of the proponents of the same sex marriage - it is clear violation of the equal protection clause. This is proof that if homosexual marriage is legal, then any kind of marriage must be legal too on the same ground.
Dan, thank you for conceding that for you "gay marriage" has no core meaning.
You are mistaken about marriage, however, but it is clear that you have invoked another rule of SSM argumentation.
If (fill-in the blank) does not fit the one-sexed arrangement then it is not essential to the union of husband and wife.
In this case, "gay marriage" is meaningless so marriage is meaningless.
But that defeats the demand being made to "extend" marriage based on gayness. If gayness renders marriage meaningless, then, what is the point of the SSM campaign?
Dan said: "I have provided two research studies which show that gay people are equal, if not superior, in their parenting skills."
Do you understand the meaning of "show" in the context of social scientific evidence? Apparently not.
-- " lesbians are more likely to be better parents because they spend more time with their kids"
Once again, Dan, you emphasized sexual orientation.
If spending more time with children is independent of sexual orientation, as it surely is, then, why your emphasis on lesbians?
Dan fancifully said: " I didn’t mean to “out” you as a Mormon. But, it is clear that you have some kind of fundamentalist religious background"
Heh.
Riiiiiiiight.
Vast said: "my sexual orientation precludes me from having biological children"
I doubt that very much, Vast.
But it is true that an arrangement that lacks the other sex is nonfertile even if all of the individuals in that arrangement were reproductively healthy could be procreative with the other sex.
In adoption, do you agree there is no right for an adult to adopt. That is, adoption is for children in need, not needy adults, right?
It is legitimate to prioritize adoptors based on marital status -- so that children will be raised in homes that integrate fatherhood and motherhood.
But there are other possiblities that merit attention at a lower priority. And adoption is not always the best solution nor the most desirable way to resolve the needs of an orphaned child.
Chairm, I'm a straight woman who is married. I'm pro-marriage for straights and gays. Why do you insist that people like me are anti-marriage?
"The integration of fatherhood and motherhood is a fundamental principle of our family law system. Sure, some people who are anti-marriage are in favor of deconstructing the application of that principle."
You say:
"But is that what the SSMers here are really saying when they say that children are not at the core of the most pro-child social institutoin we have? Really?"
Are children really the core of marriage? If so, what does that mean for couples who choose not to have kids or can't have kids? Should we demand that everyone get fertility testing before we give them marriage licenses?
Your argument is a big fail. Marriage has many purposes, one of which is the procreation and rearing of children, but it is by no means the only reason marriages exist.
On the Lawn, do you really want being gay to be legally a disability? (I'm not claiming it is) But wouldn't that make this even more of an issue of civil rights (because of the ADA)?
I know right wing Christians won't listen to this argument, but homosexuality is very much a part of nature. Most species have a percentage of the population that engages in homosexual activity. Some have even been found to form pair-bonds raising young together. I think this is very telling from a natural/evolutionary stand point and negates that old claim that being gay is a choice.
Please explain how it is that animals choose to be gay and why?
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for if it was not so, then marriage would be open to all sexual practices, of all flavors and brands. This is sex abuse as it is necessary for one man and one woman to come together as one, to become as one mind and one body, to produce children the family, every human has a mind of their own, to think and ponder the mysteries of life, so think about the most asked question of children, whether it be a child that is the product of a divorce or adoption, Where did I come from, Who are my parents, because as humans we always seek our foundation, the beginning to understand life. As humans we have the ability to ponder these questions and more, and that ability to think for ourselves is what makes an intelligent and free. One is not free if indoctrinated into sexual practices, that as youths we do not have the maturity to comprehend, as it makes us victims of sexual abuse. That is why we see so many educators having sexual relations with their students, they have not the ability, the maturity to understand that sex is not a public freedom, it is a personal matter, a private matter, a family matter, that requires the instruction of mature parents, a father and a mother. The two that understand the complicated emotional and physical dangers of sex abuse. For one to be truly in control and empowered they must first understand the seriousness of sexuality and its purpose, Serious and concerned adults, that truly care about the health and welfare of their offspring. That is what the foundation of marriage provides when respected and protected, as all loving and caring, responsible parents rear children in truth and saneness.
Charim, I conceded that SSM marriage has a core meaning that differs from your Mormon core meaning of procreation. Don't forget it is a sin to tell a lie in the Mormon faith. I've said repeatedly that SSM has the same core meaning as OSM, and if you think I feel there is no core meaning, it means YOUR marriage has no core meaning either. I find you enormously entertaining (especially your LDS identity politics), but you get frustrating sometimes.
I'll point out that you approve of fathers and daughters being married because they are male/female. Oh, yes, and uncles and nieces too...
You also approve of banning gays and lesbians and school teachers. So, Chairm, once we get our marriage rights, how else will you attempt to disciminate against us? Where will it end?
In case you haven't noticed, we are making strides towards marriage equality in Washington, DC and Maine just today! YEAH!
Washington will be a true test case, because, as you know, the US Congress has control over DC laws. If Congress chooses to do nothing, then Washington, DC will join New York state in recognizing same sex marriages performed elsewhere. It means my spouse and I can now live as a legally married couple in these states: Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Vermont, Iowa, soon New Hampshire, soon Maine, and soon Washington, DC.
Oops, I forgot to add New York as states that recognize my marriage. Odd I would forget it because I lived in NYC for fifteen years! So, let's recap. My spouse and I are legally married in New York, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, soon New Hampshire, soon Maine, and soon Washington, DC (if all goes our way)! WOW!
The gay agenda is working... The storm has come...
Gay agenda:
1. Equality
2. See No. 1
With mothers day approaching I think back to when my babies, were nurtured with my body, my breasts, my heart and soul. When I first held them and promised I would protect them and never let anyone hurt them. Because motherhood is a gift and life is precious, and a baby is in need, that makes me special, That bond, A mother love, A mothers concern, Blessed by my husband my lover, he sleeps with me, holds me and gives me the promise of children, family. That is what the foundation of marriage is, the two that come together as one, the mystery of the creation of life.. We only just begun, to live
So much of life, So much to live, So much to come, from generation to generation.
The homosexual agenda is dieing, it has no foundation that is of value to the flourishing of humanity, for it is a sexual abuse , a deviant sexual practice, that is hurtful to all whom parade it as pride. it is a false pride that will only seek to destroy the true value of humankind.
In time of darkness, Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let It Be, Let It Be
Oh Let It Be
For there is a light standing right in front of me
Speaking worlds of wisdom, let it be
Man and woman, one man and one woman
Coming together as one
To produce Children, The Family
From generation to generation
Let it Be
The only think on the so called Gay agenda is to be treated as equals with everyone else.
The only think on the so called Gay agenda is to be treated as equals with everyone else.
I think they already are.
Or do you think that the beautiful lyrics penned by Faithful above should be stamped out because they consider uniqueness in heterosexuality.
I just want to know...
Vast,
Did you answer the question I posed in attempt to help your reconcile two contradicting statements you made?
If so please let me know where that answer is...
Stefanie, what is the core meaning of marriage, in your view?
Your remark about children invokes the rule that if something is not a legal requirement, then, it is not essential to the social institution of marriage.
What is mandatory in the law for the all-male or the all-female arrangement when people ask for a license to SSM?
Such a scenario cannot consent to all that marriage entails -- for example the marital presumption of paternity which is based on the public aspect of the sexual relations of husband and wife.
It cannot consent to sex equality within the relationship. It cannot integrate man and woman for it is sex-segregative.
Now, if you can cite some legal requirement that is enforced absolutely, as per your complaint about the centrality of children in the social institution, I doubt it would distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarital category of relationshp types and kinds of living arrangements.
No sexual orientation requirement. No complulsory same-sex sexual attraction nor same-sex sexual behavior. Nothining based on a public aspect of a same-sex sexual relationship is comparable to that of the marital presumption of paternity.
When you attack the core meaning of marriage, with the rules of SSM argumentation, you end up destroying the claim for a special relationship status for the all-male or the all-female scenarios.
Just looks what was done to Mathew Shepard and tell me that people that are gay are treated like equals.
Provision for responsible procreation is combined with sex integration to form a coherent whole. That is, a social institution of foundational significance for civilization. We call it marriage.
This is not a religious claim. This is not a claim unique to this or that religious teaching. But it does arise from something the major religions recognize as do irreligious people who honestly observe the nature of humankind.
[Note: the nature of a thing is its essentials. This is not the naturalistic fallacy that Stephanie resorted to in her comment above.]
Humankind would not be humankind if it was one-sexed. The nature of humankind is two-sexed.
The nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed. We are born equal, of a man and a woman.
The nature of human community is both-sexed. Civilization is founded on the small community of husband and wife and children.
Marriage arises from these basic truths. Marriage is an adaptation to these things. These things are given; they are not constructed through politics nor through social theories. But marriage is a universal social institution that is constructed, sustained, and strengthened through cultural adaptations.
It has meaning. Public meaning. Hence the authorities of a given society will draw lines around that meaning -- based on that meaning -- for the sake of showing preference for the social institution itself. Our society delegates to government this authority.
SSMers would blind government to the value and meaning of this social institution. More than that, SSM argumentation seeks to make the culture blind as well.
That is anti-marriage. It may be pro somelthingn else. But even at that the SSMers are very reluctant to plainly state the core around which society would draw lines to distinguish it. Instead they rely on raw arbitrary power of Government (captial G not lowercase g) to impose upon society.
But SSM argumentation has at its most simple level denounced as arbitrary the marriage law that is based on the union of husband and wife.
So SSM argumenttion also ends-up being anti-law and anti-liberty and anti-equality.
Sure, SSM argumentation has a long list of false equivalencies that are dressed-up as complaints against inequality. But those equivalances, being false, are propped-up by a blatant assertion of supremacy based on identity politics.
That's not a source of more liberty but of threats to liberty.
Vast, the marriage law is at issue. There is no requirement for this or that sexual orientation. People are treated equally.
But where there is SSM (under whatever name) there is no sexual orientation requirement, no same-sex sexual attraction requirement, no same-sex sexual behavior requirement.
So there is othing gay or sexual about SSM, right?
SSM is sex-segregative but the arguments used on this point about equality lean toward another kind of segregation.
When some SSMers complain that it is not an option for a man to marry a woman if their sexual orientations are not toward the opposite sex, they mean to also use social taboo to segregate sexual orientations.
People do have choices. To choose the nonmarital one-sexed arrangement (sexualized or not, gay identified or not, romance-imbued or not) that is a liberty exercised, not a right denied. Indeed, it is equality before the law.
These NOM people remind me of the "creationists" in their committed religious zeal and failure to look at facts. You can show a creationist the scientific evidence proving that the earth is miillions upon millions of years old, and that human footprints dating back to 1.5 milliion years have been documented. They will still insist that the earth was "created" 6,000 years ago. You know what I say? I throw my hands up and say "whatever" the earth is 6,000 years old, sure... You cannot argue with irrational folks who are convinced that their viewpoint is correct, despite all evidence to the contrary. What is the point of fighting with them?
I've indicted over and over that the "core" meaning of marriage varys from person to person, from culture to culture, from society to society, and this core meaning has changed throughout history. Charim, and On Lawn cling to the notion that marriage is about procreation at its "core" meaning, and therefore cannot encompass same sex couples. Well, I have one word: balderdash... You can argue your point as much as you want, but it won't change the fact the SSM is coming. It will be the law. The storm has come, and you will lose this fight. You can continue to believe that marriage is about procreation, and teach that to your kids, but when your children come home and ask about a same sex couple that has children they know, what are you going to teach them then? Remove your blinders for a change, and wake up to the fact that times are changing.... You will NOT be harmed by SSM marriage, no matter how many TV commercials you make to try to scare people into believing this. Your marriages are protected. And, we, as gay people, hope for the same. Our families deserve the same protection from the government, and we will get it. Plain and simple... This is not said with an "in your face" attitude, but in a loving way. You can no longer use your personal, reliigous, or societal prejudices to oppress us any more. We are on the radar screen for good, and will not disappear again. Sorry to disappoint you...
Faithful, You are not doing NOM a favor by quoting from the mother Mary. It only proves that those of us in favor of same sex marriage are right. Namely, you are using your personal religious beliefs to taint your false arguments against SSM. Did you ever think that a lesbian has had this same beautiful experience of holding her own child near her breast (it was a beaufitul story too, I nearly had tears)? Do you think this mother deserves equal protection for her and her mate and child? Why should this child be punished because its parents are of the same sex? You care less about the child's rights than you do about imposing your own Catholic beliefs on this family. That's not right, nor fair... You remind me that we live in a heterocentric world, that for far too long has ignored us. We've been here all along. There's nothing to be afraid of.
Just looks what was done to Mathew Shepard and tell me that people that are gay are treated like equals.
Interesting point. What happened to Mathew is a crime, and should not happen. No one celebrates that injustice.
Yet when you do harm to the humanitarian cause of marriage, you celebrate it.
welcome the new harbingers of equality....
Also note, I do not see that you've replied to the questions above.
Do you wish to not talk about that subject anymore?
I'm convinced that On Lawn is on the NOM payroll... Otherwise, he has a lot of free time on his hand. Why this vested interest in SSM, On Lawn? It's MY life we're talking about here, not yours.... I have a reason to be fighting for marriage equality.
On Lawn, how does granting marriage rights to MORE people constitute harm to the humanitarian cause of marriage. Marriage is about children, right? That's what you've said repeatedly. So, how does protecting more children harm marriage? I guess you'd prefer children of same sex couples have no rights...?
Is that what you favor, On Lawn? Children of same sex couples must be punished because they belong to families with same sex parents. You've yet to address how you would protect children in same sex marriages. Let me guess, you'd remove them from those homes and give them to opposite sexed couples....
Dan,
Charim, and On Lawn cling to the notion that marriage is about procreation at its “core” meaning, and therefore cannot encompass same sex couples. Well, I have one word: balderdash… You can argue your point as much as you want, but it won’t change the fact the SSM is coming.
Did you really say how meaningless the scientific evidence of anthropology, as well as the science of biology are meaningless in this argument, because you want your way anyway?
In the same post that you decry Creationists for the what you consider ignorant zeal for doing the same thing?
Wow.
Sit back folks, they are flailing about without even thinking about the logical continuity of what they are saying. Things will get pretty entertaining if this keeps up
Maine has just passed same sex marriage, folks! Another day to celebrate.... We're on a roll...
Can you please tell me wtf you are saying? My evidence points to the fact that procreation and marriage are not the same thing. My evidence points to the FACTS that marriage has been in flux, been in change throughout history. My evidence points to the fact that gay people can now marry in Maine! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please answer my question. Should children of same sex couples be denied governmental protection? A simple yes or no will do...
More of Dan's greatest hits...
Why this vested interest in SSM, On Lawn? It’s MY life we’re talking about here, not yours….
And who said they weren't self-centered in their views of marriage?
But to correct, I have no interest in anything that says it is marriage. I only have interest in marriage, because I see its value in securing the rights of all involved in the human mating practice.
I'm not the one who gave the power and oversight of those rights to the man and woman who engage in that act. But I support it, and I support its support through government just as I support your freedom of association with government recognition.
How is that so wrong?
Please answer my question.
Please read my answer...
My evidence points to the fact that procreation and marriage are not the same thing.
I never said they were "the same thing". I have no interest in your evidence against the existence of strawmen...
My evidence points to the FACTS that marriage has been in flux, been in change throughout history.
No contention. How cultures have reacted to the needs of all involved in the human mating practice has changed. However the focus on that purpose has never changed.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, no?
Chairm, I think the core meaning of marriage is different for everyone. I am not religious, therefore, I see marriage as a legal institution for those who wish to be in a legally binding contract with another as kin for the rest of your life. That's why I married my husband. I want to be his partner for life.
What I think is interesting is that you say that the core of marriage is children. For many people that winds up being the case and I think that is one aspect of marriage. Yet, I think the one thing that all marriages have in common is the desire to be legally bound to the other. This goes for people with kids, people who are infertile, people who choose not to have kids, etc...
"Your remark about children invokes the rule that if something is not a legal requirement, then, it is not essential to the social institution of marriage."
If by essential, you mean "of the utmost importance," then yes, I don't think having children is the utmost importance in order to be married. But that's my personal view, I don't have kids and right now I don't have plans to have children. That doesn't take away anyone else's right to think that having children is of the utmost importance in their marriage. Why do you want to legislate what marriage means to other people? I don't want to legislate what marriage means to you.
"What is mandatory in the law for the all-male or the all-female arrangement when people ask for a license to SSM?"
Well, to get a marriage license in Texas you need an ID, if you just got divorced (30 days) you need to show your divorce decree, there is an age requirement, and I think you can't be first cousins, but it doesn't say that on my county's marriage license website. Why would it be different for SSM?
You say, "It cannot consent to sex equality within the relationship. It cannot integrate man and woman for it is sex-segregative."
Since when is marriage about righting some sex inequality? I've never heard this argument before reading your posts.
"When you attack the core meaning of marriage, with the rules of SSM argumentation, you end up destroying the claim for a special relationship status for the all-male or the all-female scenarios."
Sorry, I don't buy it. Gays and lesbians already have families whether you like it or not. They deserve to have their rights protected. They deserve to have the right to be legally committed to someone for the rest of their life (to be able to make choices in the hospital for each other and pass on property). If children are involved (many gays adopt & some even have their own biological children) they deserve to have the same kind of legal parental protections as heterosexuals.
Chairm, I don't think anyone is suggesting that children don't need loving stable homes, but your idea of "responsible procreation" sounds like it leads to forcing unwed mothers to marry the father of child? Does that mean outlawing divorcing?
"Humankind would not be humankind if it was one-sexed. The nature of humankind is two-sexed." Actually, you left out hermaphrodites and numerous other intersex genetic varieties. However, just because someone is a man doesn't mean he is straight.
Take for example the rest of the animal kingdom, most species have a segment of the population that engages in homosexual behavior. Some of these animals form pair bonds and raise young together. Homosexuality seems to be very much a part of the animal kingdom. Why wouldn't it be part of the human experience?
Chairm, do you think being gay is a choice? If so, how and why would an animal choose to be gay?
The nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed. We are born equal, of a man and a woman.
The nature of human community is both-sexed. Civilization is founded on the small community of husband and wife and children.
Marriage arises from these basic truths. Marriage is an adaptation to these things. These things are given; they are not constructed through politics nor through social theories. But marriage is a universal social institution that is constructed, sustained, and strengthened through cultural adaptations.
It has meaning. Public meaning. Hence the authorities of a given society will draw lines around that meaning — based on that meaning — for the sake of showing preference for the social institution itself. Our society delegates to government this authority.
SSMers would blind government to the value and meaning of this social institution. More than that, SSM argumentation seeks to make the culture blind as well.
That is anti-marriage. It may be pro somelthingn else. But even at that the SSMers are very reluctant to plainly state the core around which society would draw lines to distinguish it. Instead they rely on raw arbitrary power of Government (captial G not lowercase g) to impose upon society.
But SSM argumentation has at its most simple level denounced as arbitrary the marriage law that is based on the union of husband and wife.
So SSM argumenttion also ends-up being anti-law and anti-liberty and anti-equality.
Sure, SSM argumentation has a long list of false equivalencies that are dressed-up as complaints against inequality. But those equivalances, being false, are propped-up by a blatant assertion of supremacy based on identity politics.
That’s not a source of more liberty but of threats to liberty.
Sorry didn't realize the rest of Chairm's post was still attached. Ignore everything starting with "The nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed. We are born equal, of a man and a woman."
Stefanie,
While you can construct a snapshot of marital responsibility and concern to exclude children for yourself or others, it seems that doesn't preclude the concern that society feels towards all involved.
I am not saying we should not have a program which does bind adults together in mutual trust and commitment, but by re-defining marriage away from its concerns centered around procreation you are taking away our institution. Having something remain with the same name is like taking away your house and replacing it with an amusement park with "house" written on it. No doubt that is a fair trade for many, but not me. I love my house.
On Lawn You like to preach about your concern for children, but forget the fact that hundreds of children benefit from SSM. That's right, their parents will be protected, and they will be protected once SSM becomes law. Why do you skirt around this all important point?
And, Stefanie is right, not all marriages require procreation. How many times do you need to hear this before you will believe it? I gave you a definition of marriage yesterday, with not a single word mentioning children, nor procreation. I'm an educator, and when I have students who can't learn, I usually throw my hands up and go onto another student. There is such a thing as people not wanting to learn, and it seems like you are one of those.
By the way, I'm a classical musician by profession, why would I know anything about John Lennon, since I hate pop music? Can't stand the stuff..
For you marriage equality supporters, you might find hope and encouragement in this great NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse
Oh wow, I just read those two comments from Dan in another post here also.
It seems he is now spamming instead of reasoning
On Lawn, we don't need a seperate program for adults who want to commit to each other. Marriage has many purposes, one of which is procreation. Geez, it really is as simple as that.
My marriage that currently doesn't have children is the same as a gay marriage, is the same as a marriage of someone with 10 kids, is the same as a marriage of an infertile couple.
When you say this "I am not saying we should not have a program which does bind adults together in mutual trust and commitment" You are suggesting that someone need to know if they plan on having or if they can have children before they get legal approval to have a marriage license. You also ignore the fact that straight people and gay people have the ability to adopt children. So maybe they can't do the actual procreation, but they can raise unwanted children, give them love and homes.
I'm not redefining marriage "away from its concerns centered around procreation." You are making a claim about marriage in the U.S. that doesn't exist. It is not a requirement to procreate in order to get a marriage license.
Stefanie, you rock! I always appreciate heterosexuals who will take up our cause because they understand this is a matter of discrimination against an oppressed minority. Thank you...
Also, I hope On Lawn Chair didn't overlook your response which complete negates their core argument. Somehow, I have a feeling they will ignore it. But, I'm reprinting it to make sure it is heard and understood:
On Lawn, we don’t need a separate program for adults who want to commit to each other. Marriage has many purposes, one of which is procreation. You are making a claim about marriage in the U.S. that doesn’t exist. It is not a requirement to procreate in order to get a marriage license.
Stephanie said: "I don’t think having children is the utmost importance in order to be married."
Nonetheless, both husband and wife consent to what marriage entails. It entails the presumption of paternity. This is the provision for responsible procreation. It is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procration. It makes of marriage an explicitly sexual relationship of husband and wife.
Some married people who choose not procreate, change their minds. Most of those who would like to but experience infertility will resolve their troubles by changing behavior. And many who would rather not procreate will epxerience conception and, yes, childbirth. This variability is well-accomodated by the core meaning of marriage.
Stephanie, if your concept of "marriage" is privatized, then, it would change marriage for all of society, despite your claim of not intending to do that.
Marriage is a public relationship in each and every instance. That is because people enter a social institution. That is not the same thing as forming a private arrangement based solely on private reasons and motivations that are solely personal.
The provision for responsible procreation is at the core of the social institution. It is combined with the integration of man and woman -- at the private level but also at the public level.
Now, I do understand that SSMers often misread or mishear this as meaning that "procreation is the sole reason people marry" or that "procreation only happens in marriage" or that "childless couples are not really married" and on and on.
I hope you might reread what I have said about the nature of humankind and then reconsider what I have said previously about the essentials of marriage. Without the core, marriage would not be marriage.
And without recognition, and indeed preferential treatment, of marriage's core meaning, Governmet and society would be blind to the foundational social institution's vital societal signifiance.
Chairm, when I got married the government never gave me any materials or questioned me on my plans for "responsible procreation." Would you send me links to U.S. government laws that discuss "responsible procreation"? I've never heard of this before.
Chairm,
Does the marriage of an elderly couple (woman past menopause) assume the "presumption of paternity"? Why are elderly couples granted marriage licenses if they can't have children?
Chairm, I never used the word "privatized" for marriage. However I do believe that:
1. The state shouldn't have the right to tell me who I should be allowed to married (between consenting adults)
2. The state shouldn't be allowed to force me to have children
3. The state shouldn't have the right to force me to stay married to someone against my will
If that makes marriage private, then so be it.
Chairm, you say "the provision for responsible procreation is at the core of the social institution."
I will say it again. There are many types of marriages that the state allows that have nothing to do with procreation. Marriage does protect those who want to procreate. It has other protections too. What you are suggesting is that if you can't/won't procreate you shouldn't be allowed to have a marriage license.
Stephanie said: "Since when is marriage about righting some sex inequality?"
SSM argumentation makes two claims of discrimination.
1. The man-woman criterion is sex discrimination. A man cannot do what a woman may do, marry a man.
This has been largely abandoned by the courtcentric approach of the SSM campaign.
As I said, how can there be sex equality where one or the other sex has been excluded from the relationship type? It cannot.
2. The man-woman criterion is sexual orientation discrimination. Two men cannot do what a man and a woman can do; likewise two women.
This is depends first on the premise that marriage is not the union of husband and wife. It also depends on the premise that sex differentiation is a form of classification by sexual orientation. In effect, it is circular and also at odds with the claim #1 above.
The marriage law is indifferent to sexual orientation. A self-claimed homosexual man may not marry a self-claimed heterosexual man; likewise with their female counterparts. Two heterosexual women may not marry.
But a homosexual man and a homosexual woman may marry. Likewise with all combinations of man and woman, regardless of sexual orientation.
Recent court opinions in Iow and California dodged these problems and merely asserted, axiomatically, that marriage bars people based on sexual orientation.
But read the remarks of SSMers in the various discussin in the comment sections of the NOM blog.
1. SSMers argue in favor of selective sex segregation and bringing that under the social institution that integrates.
2. SSMers argue in favor of a social taboo that would stigmatize "mixed orientation" marriages. This is a form of segregation of the sexual orientations.
3. SSMers plead that sex differentiation is of the utmost importance when it comes to their sexual preferences, but is nonexistent when it comes to responsible procreation and integration of man and woman.
Also when the issue of plygamy comes up, or plural marriage or polyamory, SSMers will do one of two things.
1. Abandon the line drawn against multi-marriage because their own argumentation's standards cannot sustain discrimination against "love" and mutual caregiving and so forth.
2. Resort to the core meaning of marriage -- i.e. responsible procreation and sex itnegration -- by pointing out that sex equality is undermined and that children are prone to become victims and to suffer.
Now, the merit of 1 and 2 could be discussed, at length, if you would like, however, SSM argumentation does make claims based on sex equality, sex differentiation, and significant concerns about procreation -- even as it uses different standards when attacking the essentials of the social institution.
* * *
As a sidenote, SSMer refers to anyone who advocates or supports the merger of SSM and marriage. SSMer is not another way of saying, gay or lesbian or whateversexual. SSM is the acronymn for "same-sex marriage" and adding "er" is a common thing to do -- i.e. pro-lifer and so forth.
I am not against "gay" people nor their legitimate rights. Nor am I against SSMers and their liberty to push for what they believe in. I do stand against the argumenation that attacks marriage's core meaning. I do sand against those who would assert the supremacy of identity politics -- such as the gaycentric variety that is being proposed as the highest measure of the marriage law.
Chairm, you asked:
"1. The man-woman criterion is sex discrimination. A man cannot do what a woman may do, marry a man...As I said, how can there be sex equality where one or the other sex has been excluded from the relationship type?"
You argument claims that for men and women to have some sort of sexual equality that they must get married. Does that make everyone who isn't married unequal to eachother?
Chairm, sorry, but I can't follow #2 at all. Can you describe this in layman's terms?
It sort of sounds like you're talking about what happens legally if a heterosexual man and homosexual man decide to marry, but I can't tell.
Stephanie said: "Does the marriage of an elderly couple (woman past menopause) assume the “presumption of paternity”? Why are elderly couples granted marriage licenses if they can’t have children?"
Yes the presumption is entailed in the consent to marry.
Age is not a good proxy for menopause. Especially not if we use the absolutism rule that SSM argumentation uses against procreation.
Also, there is the problem of sex equality. Men typically are potent to the day they die. Marriage integrates the husband and wife as a single procreative duo. The marriage idea includes "in sickness and in health" and also means that the husband and wife share their fertility as a couple.
You are not seriously saying that the lack of one or the other sex is the equivalent of infertility or menopause, right? I'd hope not.
I think you are seperating responsible procreation from sex integration, as if these were not combined within the conjugal type of relationship.
Remember, if you wish to use certain rules, or standards, to dissect marriage into bits and pieces, then, to be fair the same thing must be done to test the SSM claims as well.
The overall point is that either SSMers ought to abandon these special rules -- because these defeat SSM -- or recalibrate by sorting out the core meaning of the type of relationshp they have in mind.
I said type of relationship which does not mean listing the details of this or that particular individual's personal relationship.
The law does distinguish based on marital status. There is a marriage category. And the boundaries run around a core meaning.
Maybe the same would not be so for SSM, I dunno. From what I've learned through the years, all that is legitimately claimed in the name of SSM (minus the identity politics) amounts to a claim for protection equality. And that does not require touching marriage law nor doe sit require asserting gayness as a decisive factor in providing such protections.
On the other hand, it leaves intact the preferential status that is accorded the core meaning of marriage for all of society. This optimizes both protections and liberty and it builds the basis for strengthening the most pro-child social institution we have.
You argument claims that for men and women to have some sort of sexual equality that they must get married. Does that make everyone who isn’t married unequal to eachother?
Well does it?
In a game of being out for ones-self, who has the advantage of leaving the other with the bag of raising a child they might have in a one-night stand?
I have a quote that I like to put out about equality that is useful here...
"Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences." --Virginia Woolf
Is separate but equal really equal (i.e. males-only and females-only)? Or is integration the true path to ensure each party puts equal value on the other's contribution?
I think you already know the answer to that one, we learned it from the civil rights of the 50's and their push for education integration.
As I've said here before, an all-male or all-female marriage increases marriage equality like an all-white or all-black school increases educational equality.
There are many types of marriages that the state allows that have nothing to do with procreation.
I think the difference is that you see they have nothing to do with procreation, even if the state does.
Go ahead, try me. Start naming some of these marriages....
Stephanie asked me to elaborate on the following:
2. SSMers argue in favor of a social taboo that would stigmatize “mixed orientation” marriages. This is a form of segregation of the sexual orientations."
* * *
The SSM campaign is not just a demand for legal changes. It is a demand for cultural changes, as well.
Social taboos are part of culture. It is no small part of the lines drawn against adult relatives forming sexual relationships -- within or outside of marriage. Some taboos are based on public morality but, of course, SSM argumentation has denounced -- at least rhetorically -- the very idea of legislating public standards of morality. That contradicts the assertion of the stigmatization of "mixed orientation" marriages that is evident in these discussion here but also elsewhere.
Chairm, you keep claiming "marriage’s core meaning" is procreating and I keep claiming it's just one of the purposes of marriage, but not all of the purposes.
Why do we give marriage licenses to people who can't have children?
How is this different from gay people who can't have children, but can choose to adopt?
On Lawn, wow, I'm getting really exhausted with you and Chairm not just answering a simple yes or no.
It seems you are both claiming that legal acceptance of marriage between men and women makes men and women equal. True or False?
If that's true,
What is the equality of any unmarried persons?
What is the equality of people who have children, but aren't married?
Sorry, didn't put that in yes or no form.
Are unmarried people unequal to eachother?
Are people who have children together, but not married unequal?
On Lawn, here is one of those types of marriages. I asked Chairm earlier and he failed to answer:
Does the marriage of an elderly couple (woman past menopause) assume the “presumption of paternity”? Why are elderly couples granted marriage licenses if they can’t have children?
Other good examples are:
Why are a menopausal woman and a younger man who can procreate allowed to have a marriage license?
Why are infertile couples allowed to marry?
marriage of an elderly couple
Easy to answer. Do we keep the elderly from being able to attend sporting events when they no longer can climb stairs? Do we keep them from being able to enjoy the news when they can no longer see?
Should we keep them from marrying when they no longer are fertile?
The elderly belong to a larger group of infertile couples. Some societies even in the early USA have allowed people to annul a marriage for infertility (again noting the special role that marriage is expected to play). In our enlightened society we recognize disability as no reason to keep people from what they normally would otherwise have.
I realize this may be an exception that gays can also fit. But you tell me, is being gay a disability?
Because from where I sit, even though infertile couples try with money, time and effort to overcome the disability, anyone in a same-sex relationship can't even reasonably be considered to be trying.
Hi Stephanie, thanks for engaging the discussion based on substance. That is refreshing.
* * *
You said:
"1. The state shouldn’t have the right to tell me who I should be allowed to married (between consenting adults)"
If consent is of such importance, then, surely so is answering the question, "consent to what?"
Would you remove the consent to the presumption of paternity and replace it with some other default? I'd hope not. This presumption is the sexual basis for marital status.
But if there is no sexual aspect in SSM, or in whatever broad relationship type you have in mind, then, that's fair enough. It would be a different type from marriage but it may have merit.
And as such there'd be no sexual basis for barring some people and not others.
Maybe it would be based on protections that arise from certain vulnerabilities experienced by people outside of marriage.
* * *
You said:
"2. The state shouldn’t be allowed to force me to have children"
Nor does it. Nor does the core meaning of marriage.
The social institution merey sets the table, in a way, and the rest is up to the people who enter marriage.
Almost all marry and almost all marriages have children. The marital presumption of paternity is highy reliable. It can be challenged, of course, but the criteria for a challenge is based again on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation. It is also based on protecting children, both mom and dad, and the special status of the social institution of marriage.
Your concern about being "forced" to do something against your will is not contradicted by the core meaning of marriage.
But if you use that standard when questioning that core, we must use it when considering SSM as well. There is no law for SSM anyplace it has been imposed which would force people to engage in same-sex sexual behavior. Nor to even show they are same-sex attracted or self-identify as "gay" or whatever. The question of force does not explain the lack of a core meaning for SSM.
Not tht you intended it to supply such a meaning since for you each individual's core meaning is a standalone and not a public meaning for a public type of relationship.
* * *
You said:
"3. The state shouldn’t have the right to force me to stay married to someone against my will"
Was this point a response to something that was said in this discussion? I missed any comment that hinted that the government would force people to stay married.
However, even estranged and divorced parents are responsible for their children, unless parental relinquishment occurs. And there can be ongoing marital ties that outlive marriages.
There may be extremes in the other direcion, but generally people enter marraige expecting it to be for a lifetime; and that is shared by the society when we support those whose relationship rides through rough times -- this usually strengthens that commitment both privately and publicly.
Social institutions exert influence. Some people don't want to submit themselves to the "baggage" that coerces, in a relatively low-coercive way, conformity to public, social, cutlural standards of behavior. Marriage may not be for such people. Or such people may not be ready for marriage.
* * *
You said: "If that [your three points together] makes marriage private, then so be it."
No, that does not make marriage private. But claiming there is no core meaning would effectively do so if that notion is embedded in the societal recognition of the social institution.
On one hand SSMers will argue as if marriage is already reduced to a private arrangement that the Government merely rubber stamps meaninnglessly.
And on the other hand, SSMers will argue for the merger of marriage with nonmarriage (i.e. effectively deinstitutinalizing marriage), then, society should withdraw support for the institution -- that is the government should disestablish marital status and the preference for the institution.
Are you in favor of reducing marriage to a private arrangement, one way or the other?
On Lawn, you say elderly people are disabled. I thought becoming old was part of nature.
I think gays are part of nature too and just like we give the elderly marriage licenses we should give gays marriage licenses.
Stefanie, apologies for misspelling your name. It was not intentional.
I did answer your question about the elderly.
I'd add that marriage for the elderly may be a lesser societal concern in terms of responsible procreation but not in terms of sex integration where the concern may be heightened. Still, the core is a coherent whole -- a combination of at least these two universal features of marriage.
* * *
Suppose there was a system for barring people based on age. How would it look?
Would government revoke marital status based on some arbitrary age limit, because entering marriage would be denied based on that same criterion?
Would the real criterion be age or would it be something specific to the reproductive health of women only?
There are many obvious problems with your question, Stefanie, and I don't think that it is a serious proposition, in fact. It is a mildly interesting rehtorical ploy which SSMers seem to have adopted as intrinsic to SSM argumentation.
Even if society would make the boundaries more tightly drawn, the one-sexed arrangement, regardless of age and sexual orientation, would remain outside bounds.
This is where SSM argumentation errs in claiming to expand marriage when it would actually reduce the meaning of marriage by eraising the core around which boundaries are drawn.
Stefanie, people grow old and, through the normal process of maturation, begin life as pre-fertile, become fertile, and then subfertile and eventually infertile.
Thus fertility is a variability of the opposite-sexed basis of human procreation.
The lone individual is a one-sexed scenario. And, so is a same-sex twosome or moresome. This scenario lacks the other sex. It is nonfertile, constantly even if each individual is reproductively healthy and could potentially be fertile with the other sex.
It takes both male and female to express fertility.
Fertility is variable -- as per your remarks about the variability that age represents.
But nonfertility is a constant where one or the other sex is excluded.
Different categories that your rhetoric has conflated. Homosexuality is not infertility nor is it a disability of reproductive powers. Each lesbian woman who has been impregnated, and each gay man who has impregnated a woman, are living evidence of this fact. But no one-sexed scenario -- gay, lesbian, straight, whatever -- can procreate without the other sex.
This stuff is obvious, and I don't mean to suggest it is news to you, however, due to the conflation that commonly appears in SSM rehtoric, it needs to be pointed out as the nature of human procreation.
Chairm, no problem, I'm more than happy to have a civilized discussion. I really do want to understand the other side because it seems so foreign to me.
“If consent is of such importance, then, surely so is answering the question, “consent to what?”
Consent meaning, both parties entering the marriage contract are allowed to enter legal contracts based on law. For example, a 12 year old can't marry a 30 year old. The law says the 12 year old isn't of consenting age.
"Would you remove the consent to the presumption of paternity and replace it with some other default?"
I think what you're saying is that U.S. law assumes that if two people are married, then any children are assumed to be the married persons' offspring. I don't see why we would get rid of that, but I'm sure there have to be instances when a husband has taken a wife to court to find out the paternity of their child. I also think infidelity is one of the instances covered in divorce law, partly for this reason.
I continued reading your post and found that I think where we diverge is on the core meaning of marriage and whether or not that makes said definition of marriage invalid as a social institution.
I think marriage is a social institution that covers several purposes. You think marriage is a social institution with one core purpose, and never the twain shall meet I guess.
But if there is no sexual aspect in SSM, or in whatever broad relationship type you have in mind, then, that’s fair enough. It would be a different type from marriage but it may have merit.
And as such there’d be no sexual basis for barring some people and not others.
Maybe it would be based on protections that arise from certain vulnerabilities experienced by people outside of marriage.
Sorry, I did it again. This is all I meant to post...
Chairm, no problem, I’m more than happy to have a civilized discussion. I really do want to understand the other side because it seems so foreign to me.
“If consent is of such importance, then, surely so is answering the question, “consent to what?”
Consent meaning, both parties entering the marriage contract are allowed to enter legal contracts based on law. For example, a 12 year old can’t marry a 30 year old. The law says the 12 year old isn’t of consenting age.
“Would you remove the consent to the presumption of paternity and replace it with some other default?”
I think what you’re saying is that U.S. law assumes that if two people are married, then any children are assumed to be the married persons’ offspring. I don’t see why we would get rid of that, but I’m sure there have to be instances when a husband has taken a wife to court to find out the paternity of their child. I also think infidelity is one of the instances covered in divorce law, partly for this reason.
I continued reading your post and found that I think where we diverge is on the core meaning of marriage and whether or not that makes said definition of marriage invalid as a social institution.
I think marriage is a social institution that covers several purposes. You think marriage is a social institution with one core purpose, and never the twain shall meet I guess.
On Lawn, you say elderly people are disabled. I thought becoming old was part of nature.
Interesting. So because age is natural, they are not disabled. If we subscribed to that illogic, we would have to remove their eligibility to handicapped parking, Medi-Care, Social Security, etc.... No?
I think gays are part of nature too and just like we give the elderly marriage licenses we should give gays marriage licenses.
Storms are a part of nature. Parasites are a part of nature. I can play this game too
Of course your point is really not what is part of nature but the inability to do something is natural. But as I mentioned above, even if it is natural it is still a disability.
And to be honest, I've heard before that segregation was natural, and should therefore be recognized by the government routine. I thought we got rid of that in the 60's but apparently gays want to try it too...
I'll add to On Lawn's list: are homophobes a part of nature, or is it learned? Is hatred biological or environmental.
What do you say Stefanie?
Stefanie, the question on consent was different from what you answered.
"Consent to what?"
If there is no core meaning, then, consent is not as definitive as you had earlier suggesting when your referred to "consenting adults".
To what would these adults consent?
* * *
Marriage has a core meaning. It has several universal features -- across the anthropoligical record. I've highlighted two that are expressed as central to marital status.
The man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes. That is not just a universal, it is also a legal requirement. Integration is also a purpose of marriage.
The marital presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation. The bonding of father and mother and their children is not just a universal, it is also a legal requirement. It is a purpose of marriage, also.
These are combined as a coherent whole -- i.e. a social institution. This is a third purpose of marital status -- of societal regard for this foundational institution of civil society.
So to recognize the institution, we need to see its distinguishing features, and, in the law, we have these two legal requirements that cannot apply to the one-sexed scenario.
SSM is not a foundational social institution. It is sex-segregative. It does not provide for responsible procreation -- it segregates fatherhood and motherhood where children are involved. No one-sexed arrangement can provide for sex equality within it. It cannot provide for procreation without going outside of it.
So, I hope you can see that the core meaning of marriage does cover several purposes. If you deny the core, then, do you propose some other universal features or essentails that would distinguish marriage from the vast range of other types of relationships and other kinds of living arrangements?
It is not just a license to marry that differentiates marriage, Stefanie, but I sometimes see how SSMers will say it boilsdown to an arbitrary use of governmental power to license romance or to license love.
Is that what it boilsdown to, in your view?
On Lawn, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the legal definition of disabled. As I said before, kudos to you for being condescending.
I've never heard anyone calling an elderly person's inability to conceive a disability. I thought illnesses were disabilities. That's where I'm coming from on that.
I don't really see what storms or parasites being natural has to do with marriage. Are storms and parasites trying to get marriage licenses?
No one has bothered to answer my question about homosexuality in the animal community at large. It is well known that homosexuality and homosexual pair-bonding exists in many species. How and why does an animal choose to be homosexual?
My point is, if humans are born homosexual, then this is most definitely a civil rights issue and that's where I come from. I think being gay is natural and they deserve the equal benefits under the law as us heterosexuals.
Whether or not homosexuality is inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn.
But more importantly, marriage does not discriminate against indviduals on the basis of sexual orienation.
Your complaint is that the Homosexual Relationship (capitalized to reiterate your own emphasis on homosexuality) is not elevated above other living arrangements and relationship types that are nonmarital.
You also appear to have a premise that says that there is a kind of Homosexual Relationship that is the equivalent of the Marital Relationship.
This means you need to do at least a couple of things to support your complaint.
1. Distinguish the Homosexual Relationship from the rest of the nonmarital category of relationships and arrangements.
2. Compare that relationship type with the type that is marital to show that you would not change the marital type to fit the kind of Homosexual Relationship that you have in mind.
Thusfar, I think you, as other SSMers, have sought to reduce the meaning of marriage to fit something that would describe almost the entire range of nonmarital arrangements and relationship types.
There appears to be nothing that would distinguish the particular kind of Homosexual Relationship you (SSMers overall) have in mind. So SSM argumentation turns its guns on blasting the core of the Marital Relationship rather than turning its effort on building-up the definitive features of what you do have in mind as the replacement of marriage.
I thought illnesses were disabilities.
Perhaps better to say illnesses cause disabilities.
I don’t really see what storms or parasites being natural has to do with marriage.
Nor do I about "gays".
Ensuring people recognize the rights of all involved in creating children is not natural. Marriage is about equally considering everyone's rights in how two have and raise children. What is natural (hence not a choice) is that it takes a man and a woman.
This was written by a 17 year old person on youtube. I think our next generation will handle gay marriage with far more intelligence than their parents:
My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.
Consolidating threads on Dan's remark from the teenager.
It's funny given how focused they are on their own wedding ceremony, that gays don't seem to care much about how their children will feel about having a wedding with a significant parent-relationship absent.
Do they really believe a daughter won't mind not having her real mother at her wedding? Or her real father to walk her down the aisle? Are they really so into their own fantasies that they can honestly believe the child feels no grief at being expected to celebrate having a male "mother" or a female "father"?
The available evidence suggests that to be a motherless daughter or to be a fatherless son is not something a truly loving parent would want for their child. It's a tragedy, something to be avoided if possible and grieved if not - it is not something to do deliberately to a child, on the highly unfair assumption that children are "flexible".
Gays must be seriously in denial to believe this is not a problem.
Just a piece of advice from someone in New Hampshire:
"NOM is merely attempting to put out fires with little result. While they work in New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey are coming close to approving same sex marriage. The fact that they have allied themselves with Carrie Prejean of questionable reputation and Maggie Gallagher whose apparently decided marriage was important long after the birth of her child to not lend much credibility to their campaign. The simple fact is, NOM is trying to hold back the ocean with a pile of sand, it might work for a time but in the end it is a waste of time. " MikeyC
on lawn: if homosexuals are forced to have sex and marry someone of the opposite sex, in order to fulfill your requirements of the natural and healthy way to bear and have children, then you are saying they are 2nd class citizens. Being forced into a marriage, that is obviously very a sexual entity, with someone you have NO physi cal attraction to, is ahorrible situation that no one should have to endure. How would you like to have sex with someone of your gender for your life, and that was the only way you could experience the magesty and unmatched beauty of raising a family?
But as you say, that is the only "right way to do it." And lucky for us good ol' gays, we have that option. YAY!
and chairm, you can get into a meticulous philisophical debate about how ssm is invalid because sexual orientation is not a basis for a union/marriage. Sure its not as techniqually solid and cut and dry as: man+women=marriage. but why on earth does it matter? why is the defintion of marriage so important. if its tweaked, that is ARBITRARY. how will it affect hetero marriages?
You guys are NOT psychology professors. Your point that ssm couples arent as good for a kid as hetero ones is an opinion, as already stated by many. As a professor at a college ranked in the top ten in the country, with a PHD in developmental psychology and years of research b ehind my back, I can tell you that overall, taking into account all the studies, it has been shown that ssm has no affect on kids more negative than hetero ones.
Your assertions are driven by hate. And i pray for you. I believe that all people are equal, regardless of anything. Period. And it is a beautiful thing to feel. I feel su ch sorrow for those who don't have it in their lives.
Personal attacks by SSMers do not decide the merit of the substantive arguments made against the imposition of a merger of SSM and marriage.
There is a pile of sand and it is the set of special rules that SSMers have used to attack marriage. When it comes to challenging their own assertions, SSMers are quick to kick the sand in the face of society and then runaway.
So...now, those who are advocating for SSM are attacking marriage? Attacking an institution in which they seek to be included? Chairm, that makes not one whit of sense.
Also, Chairm, you seem to be construing a married relationship as an "identity" (to wit, your odd juxtaposition of a "Homosexual Relationship" to a "Marital Relationship")--this is very odd. Are you saying that a man and a woman in a marriage have no identity other than their marriage? Further, you say--and I'm quoting you--"But more importantly, marriage does not discriminate against indviduals on the basis of sexual orienation." If such is the case, then the debate is now rendered academic: the state then has no right to deny gays the right to marry each other.
So…now, those who are advocating for SSM are attacking marriage? Attacking an institution in which they seek to be included? Chairm, that makes not one whit of sense.
What makes no sense is an institution which invites every man and woman, somehow finds exception in homosexuals.
And they are the ones trying to tell us gender doesn't matter
The problem is not that they want to be included, because that is simply solved. They are included.
The problem is that they want to re-make marriage into the model of their relationship...
As quoted elsewhere...
And as mirrored by others (also quoted elsewhere on this forum)
– Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
Roger, it is not I but you, and other SSMers, who have emphasized sexual orientation.
The marital relationship is a union of man and woman.
You have emphasized the homosexual relationship and have attempted to equate it with the marital relationship.
I've asked for the distinguishing features of both, since these are one and the same in your viewpoint, but what has been offered in the various responses lacks a core meaning as denoted in definitive legal requirements.
Marriage is not one-sexed, but, sure, a gay person may marry someone of the other sex.
Marriage is indifferent to sexual orientation. SSM argumentation emphasizes sexual orientation.
Marriage is not neutral to sex differentiation. SSM argumentation's emphasis on sexual orientation cannot be neutral to sex differentiation.
That much is in common.
On the other hand ...
Marraige has two legal requirements that SSM argumentation would abolish or undermine to the point of meaninglessness.
1. The man-woman criterion which stands for sex integration.
2. The requirement that people consent to all that marriage entails including the marital presumption of paternity.
Government recognizes the foundational social institution of marriage, and does not own nor create that social institution of civil society.
In contrast, the one-sexed scenario is sex-segregative and is nonprocreative and is not a foundational social institution.
Apples and oranges, Roger.
Now, if not for the emphasis on homosexuality, your argumentation would be about protections for families outside of marriage.
But as it stands, your argumentation is really about the assertion of identity politics.
No, gay identity is not one and the same as homosexuality nor same-sex sexual attraction. Gay identity is a socio-political identity.
While homosexuality or same-sex sexual inclinations may or may not be inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn.
Whatever you might think about homosexuality or same-sex sexual behavior or same-sex sexual attraction, the marriage law is indifferent to sexual orientation.
But sex integration is not sex neutral. Nor is responsible procreation.
And, unlike SSM argumentation which negates the public sexual aspect of marriage, the presumption of paternity is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation.
If sexual orientation was of such great importance to SSM, you'd insist on a legal requirement for it when applicants show-up for an all-male or an all-female relationship license.
Indeed, you'd insist that unless such a requirement was put into effect, and enforced absolutely, society would have less love and less homosexual romance than it really needs.
I am just turning your own argumentation onto your own assertions about SSM. You want to emphasize sexual orientation and you want to emphasize legal requirements.
Marriage has its requirements and those have zilch to do with sexual orientation.
Gay identity politics makes many false equivalencies. A key one is that homosexuality the matching bookend for heterosexuality. The questin of proportion seems not to enter into such an equivalency except to claim that one is a minority, the other a majority, and thus the minority must dictate the meaning of marriage.
It is quite an absurd argumentation, but SSMers seem very fond of it and so they should welcome when its assertions are tested by its own special rules.
Roger said: "So…now, those who are advocating for SSM are attacking marriage? Attacking an institution in which they seek to be included?"
The institution does have a core meaning which SSM argumentation attacks.
SSM argumentation is remarkably vague about the relationship type into which people want to be included.
It is not marriage so they are knocking on the wrong door.
I suggested that it is some special version of the Homosexual Relationship but that was just because of the pro-SSM emphasis. The argumentation is clearly asserting some kind of equivalency with the marital relationship.
But the marital relationship is not the Hetereosexual Relationship.
SSM arugmenation is stuck on false dichotomies that are supposed to serve the false equivalencies. It is a house of cards.
The marital relationship is two-sexed but it is a subset of all the different kinds of relationships that people you'd call "heterosexual" can form. The vast range of relationship types that "heterosexual" people might form are not sexualized. Some are one-sexed and some are two-sexed and still not sexualized.
SSM argumentation's special rules point toward a nonsexual same-sex arrangement of some kind. But that contradicts the pro-SSM emphasis on sexual orientation. It is a muddle.
The public relationship type known as the marital relationship is a sexual type of relationship. See the basis for the marital presumption of paternity; see the integration of fatherhood and motherhood; see the unity of the sexes.
So what is is, Roger, that you have in mind? A sexual relationship based on legal requirements? Or a nonsexual relationship based on some vague and arbitrary requirements? Maybe you can explain the rules of eligibility for that relationship type -- why two, why unrelated, why this or that age, and so forth.
And maybe you can do that without attacking the core meaning of marriage and its legal requirements.
FIRST OF ALL: This is NOT an issue of civil rights, its a moral and ethical issue based on Liberty; and it is that gay (*#@*%*) judge that is interfering with our right to pursue HAPPINESS. We just want to get away from something that is stinky, disgusting, and immoral; and, we oppose that gay judge attacking our beautiful women, making us unhappy by exposing us to his disgusting immoral sewage. Now, Just in case Donald Trump decides against Carrie Prejean, this should be our response: Carrie's right to support the (NOM) and marriage between a man and a woman is based on the Declaration Of Independence (that the USA is founded upon), which states that We The People have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the [[ PURSUIT ]] of [[ HAPPINESS ]]. In litigation thereafter, the U .S. Supreme Court declared in,( Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1); that, the freedom to marry is recognized as a vital [[ PERSONAL RIGHT ]] essential to the pursuit of happiness. As a result, that gay judge has violated the liberty rights of Carrie Prejean by condemning her pursuit of happiness to marry a MAN. The (NOM) can file suit against that gay judge who slandered Carrie Prejean because of her support for traditional marriage, and because of her right to pursue traditional happiness; because, that gay judges slanderous attack is meant to destroy Carrie's career, and livelihood, because of her LAWFUL pursuit of happiness (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 US 390). You see, Carrie didn't attack him, he attacked and slandered Carrie, and this the way all of you gay rabid dogs are, you exist to give us a problem, where we have none.
Once women started having the choice to not have children, marriage lost the sole purpose of attaching children to their parents, and became about affirming adult affection. Don't blame it on same-sex marriage.
Joshua - I hope you are not an attorney. Opinion cannot be deemed slander. Most of his attack would also be considered hyperbole, which cannot be deemed slander because they are mere insults that no one would believe to be more than that. Also her constitutional rights are only violated if the government punished her for her statements, not a private pageant or citizen. Your arguments and cause will be respected when you know what you are talking about before you start talking.
Once women started having the choice to not have children, marriage lost the sole purpose of attaching children to their parents, and became about affirming adult affection. Don’t blame it on same-sex marriage.
As was just quoted (folks, I seem to have to keep reminding people what is being said or they shoot off on wild goose chases)...
#
– Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
#
Delores, I do know what I am talking about, when a private citizen violates a persons liberty, it is either a criminal offense or it is a legal injury, where one can be compensated for that injury. If Donald Trump takes away Carrie's crown, she has a legal claim for slander, and that gay judge will start running for cover. I simply wanted everyone to know what her legal theory could be. Carrie Prejean has suffered a defamation of character because of her lawful pursuit of happiness which offended a gay man who sought to manipulate his sodomite life style upon her. That gay judge has no right to defame her character because she would not be manipulated by his evil sodomite scheme. Furthermore, why would "Modern Women," who are Liberated and Free, allow some gay sodomite to deprive her of the right to pursue traditional happiness, as EQUALLY as a gay man in his sodomite life style??
To On Lawn: Marriage is unlimited and knows no boundary, and the depth of marriage is as infinate as the universe itself. However, the union of homosexuals has severe limitation, and their union has many boundaries, and only those who are hopelessly irrational, and self-destructive, can live with such shallow values. A REAL Man can never stop discovering his Real Woman, and She can never stop being amayzed by him, and the increasing value of their relationship that they develop during their marriage, binds them together as one entity. Same sex marriages have severe limitation, and gays are constantly attacking trditional marriage so as to to drive a wedge between men and women, and to keep them from discovering the depth and the value of their love for each other; and it has worked, because neither you nor anyone you know, have any perception of what love and marriage could be. Gays simply want us to be as unhappy and unsatisfied as they are!
Josh,
Be more careful about friends in the area before you shoot off from the keyboard...
Sorry about that!
"GREAT" Report Jennifer!
I have a question of some ponderance for the wholly (un)informed same-sex marriage pro-fessors who are speaking on behalf of (not) their own children....being supposedly truly good examples of American Family life.....(NOT).... how are they going to cope when little Susie or little Johnny starts learning about sex education 9 or 10 years down the road? OR, is Natural Science become a gender neutral phenomen to be dismissed by the chopping block as well? Should we just rewrite what it means to be born a Human? Explain that to the "love" child who has no future in those households....(unless of course, those children rebel against them.) OMG, HOW POSITIVELY CIR-CU-LAR!
Vick, my parents had many gay friends when I was growing up. I don't understand what's so difficult to explain. My parents told me that John & John loved eachother like Mommy & Daddy. Kids aren't stupid. I could see how John & John felt for eachother and it made sense. It was no confusion at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
The one and only problem with this blog is that it is based upon a false premise. Marriage was never about mother,father and/or children. What it historically has always been about is inheritance and property rights.
Children have always, (especially female children), have historically been seen as property and a resource for gaining wealth or prestige through alliances. Even biblical marriage is about productivity and inheritance rather than about love or any other amorphous idea called love.
As to the specific issue of children and child-rearing:
Every single scientific study ever done has proven that children are as stable and productive in homosexual households as they are in heterosexual households. When it comes to child-rearing there is no study in existance that shows a disparity between homo and heterosexual based family units. The arguement is flawed from the very beginning.
As to the desire of same-sex couples for the equality of marriage, the author claims that committed couples do not require marriage- then neither do heterosexuals need marriage.
The author also cites as example her love of her sister. Good for her and her sister BUT while the author can automatically inherit from her sister while I cannot inherit fomr my committed relationship. Legal wills do not garauntee inheritance and specifically, homosexual wills are routinly thrown out when challenged by the heterosexual family members. People are dis-enfarnchised (tossed out of their homes), and are routinely stripped of any legal rights to, at times, years of mutual ownership of property. These are facts and are indisputable. The author either didn't do her homework or has a personal axe to grind and so needs no basis in reality.
The author also goes into a laundry list of why all human needs acn be met with simple interaction with other people. First, She obviously has no realisitc Idea of how homosexuals are treated. A heterosexual can list a stranger as a beneficiary on health insurance policies but I cannot list my significant other. She say she pools money with others, and that she can get comfort from an animal but she never even recognizes the basic human need to have a specific asnd very intimate relationship wiuth another human. She thinks that homosexuals do not deserve human contact other than in general and public scenarios. She does not recognize that homosexuals have the need to grow old with that special someone just like hheterosexuals do. The author obviously does not realize that she praises thre instiitution of marriage in that it drwas adults (father/mother), into a very close and specific relationship nut she cannot comprehend that homosexuals- as human beings- are exactly the same in terms of emotional needs. True I have 3 cats and I love them and get MUCH comfort from them but A cat will live upwards of 15 years (rarely longer), and that is certainly not comparable to 50+ years in a possible relationship. It is rather very condescending and arrogant to assign what needs and feeling homosexuals are rather than recognize that they are EXACTLY the same as heterosexual needs except for one difference- the object of affection. That is the ONLY difference! homosexuals are after all HUMANS before they are homosexuals.
Finally,( and I'm sure your cheering that word...LOL)
Any children in a homosexual marriage would and are a priority. BECAUSE it is much more difficult for homosexuals to become parents (either through adoption or through surrogacy), those children are desired and planned for. Children are and always should be the priority because as the author said, they are the future. AND one thing in support of children which heterosexuals do not have is that homosexuals have to CHOOSE when or if to have children whereas heterosexuals can have the rare accident- and sometimes not so rare. There are plenty of unwanted children in the system today that lack homes or any stability. Homes because they have been abandoned or abused, and lacking in stability because fosterhomes after foster homes, and MORE abuse and more moving, and less long-term friendships, and absolutly no trust of any adult figure after their journey. That sure is such a better way than allowing the homosexual couple who are committed and who have the means from adopting and giving that child balance and direction and above all stability and love. NOw I want it understood that the child-care system and workers are not the people in the wrong for the most part, and there are certainly success stories of those abandoned children. The point reamains though that they have too much inventory and that there are not enough workers or homes to meet the need. BUT denying those children a home based solely on an outdated societal view of homoseuxuals, based not on science but on religion and feeling- pure subjectivity in other words- is downright criminal. If heterosexuals want to gain ANY headway with the child arguement, they must show that they can deliver on their rosy picture of heterosexual homes with 2 sexes. They have yet to do that and the best arguement FOR homosexual marriage and even child-rearing is that the system shows how inadequate the present thought really is.
The proof is in the pudding people. You just have to open your eyes to the world around you and stop being afraid of change and inclusion.
To Joshua-
As a gay man I fully and whole heartedly agree with your anger over how Carrie was treated. I too think she has and had every right to answer as she did and not be vilified for it. I was deeply ashamed by how she was treated. She was asked a question and ststed her belief. That's all folks!
I don't care what you want to believe. you don't have to like me or agree with my lifestyle or even want me to be treated equally, (and it certainly IS about equality). You have that right and so do I. The difference often is that I will fight for your rights but you refuse to even acknowledge that I have the same right.
Your arguement seems to be more in anger over the judge rather than over homosexuals at all.First the judge did not stop nor in any way prohibit her from following her heart and finding a happy andloving marriage with a man so your anger causes an incorrect arguement or assumption on your part- that my relationship denies you the right to a relationship. My relationship does not, nor will it ever preclude yours.
Anyway you have not proved anything approaching an attack or violation of Carrie's civil rights and BTW what you are describing, we homosexuals have felt at the hands of heterosexuals for centuries! you had one experience. add it up and who has the better claim to violation of civil and HUMAN rights.
To Chairm--
The issue of SSM is indeed sexual as is marriage because sex may lead toprocreation but often it does not. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage and neither is exual relations either.
You are correct that marriage only describes one subset of the range of HUMAN relationships and the reason we homosexuals are focused on being married is many but in this instance,homosexuals already enjoy all the range of human interaction that hetero-sexuals do EXCEPT for the relationship of marriage. We have boy/girlfriends, work friends, school friends, family, enemies, and any other concievable relationship you care to name.
The confusion comes, I think, when heterosexuals hear us talking about the financial benefits of marriage. That may give you the impression that we do not respect marriage for its procreation aspect. Far from it but more than that is the financial aspect of marriage quite apart from children or love. Insurance, inheritance, legal next of kin status-- these are all aspects that are not attainable for homosexuals. Civil Unions mostly do not afford these benefits. Legal wills and other documents also do not afford these protections. Besides, it is natural to want to celebrate your relationship and why would you assume that homosexuals do not have the same needs?
There are homosexual couples that want to have children and as posted before, children thrive every bit as well in a homosexual environment as they do in heterosexual family units. That is pure scientific fact.
Some couples either do not want children, realize that they cannot provide for a child and therefore do not subject a child to that horrible existance, or like me, cannot have a child because medically, They may not have the time nor physical energy to raise a child.
Anyway,
this was meant with all respect and so I would appreciate the same in return. The reason I say that is that I see MUCH vilification of anything that people write that shows homosexuals as human beings.
The problem for the courts is to distinguish between strongly held opinion and fact. The court requires a higher standard that when one bears their testimony that they know children fare best when raised by a mother and father. What happens when mainstream peer reviewed research from the APA, AMA or countless other non-religious organizations prove otherwise? NOMS best strategy may be to fear monger as much as possible. I suggest one ACTUALLY read the Ohio supreme court decision, they address pretty much every religious opinion out there. One needs to keep religion out of civil marriage. There are religions FOR gay marriage and those that are against. There is simply no compelling justification or rational basis to deny same sex couples civil marriage. NOM's best strategy is the voting booth where folks can ignore the facts, and vote strongly held beliefs. Now that this issue is before the federal court in Northern California, I hope NOM is there to present their "strongly held beliefs and opinions". Then we can get to the science behind the real facts of the issue.