Dear Friends of Marriage,
The National Organization for Marriage is at CPAC this week--the annual gathering of political conservatives across this country. NOM's booth is awesome! If you are around in D.C. today (and a member) stop by and visit us!
MSNBC's uber-liberal pundit Rachel Maddow just stopped by. She grabbed a National Organization for Marriage pen and said, "Wow. You guys have great pens. Can I have one?" "Sure," I told her. And then Rachel said: "I got to go tell the NRA guys they really should get your pens." A few moments later an NRA guy shows up and says, "Rachel Maddow says NOM has the best pens. ...Can we have one?"
Surreal, huh?
Not as surreal, though, as what just happened in the District of Columbia. The local city council not only passed gay marriage, but relentlessly refused to even attempt any real religious liberty protection.
And so this week, sadly, the Archdiocese of Washington announced that the Catholic Church was ending adoption and foster care services in D.C. The Catholic Charities adoption and foster care services will be handed over intact--so as not to hurt any kids--to a third party.
Maggie Gallagher was at the Cato Institute this week debating Andrew Sullivan, who said the city council is right. He said taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to "discriminate" against gay couples. But who is it that is getting hurt here? Who is being helped by driving one of the best charities for deprived children out of the public square? Will one gay couple really be better off because no Catholic adoption and foster care service exists?
And yet the politician in the D.C. city council ruled that to let a Catholic institution be Catholic, and still help in the public square, would be "aiding discrimination."
I said it is sad, and it is, but truthfully my blood boils when I think about it. I never imagined living in an America where the government would tell the church how to run its charities. Remember this day the next time someone tells you that gay marriage is about love and tolerance, that it won't have any consequences.
The featured speaker at Cato on the panel with Maggie and Andrew Sullivan was Nick Herbert, a British member of Parliament who proudly noted that there is no political party in Britain anymore who would defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All parties are devoted to what he calls "gay equality." He laid out very clearly, in far more measured tones than Andrew, that this vision includes a massive expansion of government power to repress the forces of intolerance and inequality, everywhere from the sports arena to the schools. (Including, Nick said incredibly, faith schools.) I don't know many Americans who want to head in the direction that Great Britain is pioneering, where the government tells Catholic bishops they may not fire school principals who enter a same-sex civil union, or fined an Anglican bishop more than $100,000 for refusing to hire a proudly and actively gay youth minister for his diocese.
Noelle wrote to us the next day to tell us what a difference NOM's work has made for her:
I have been reading and admiring your work since early 2008, when, as a California voter tasked with voting on Prop 8, my intellectual instincts told me to vote for it in defiance of my exclusively left-liberal education, San Francisco cultural inheritance, and entirely opposed twenty-something peer group. Nagged by a guilty conscience about this, I began researching the marriage question, and your rigorous, fair-minded, arguments single-handedly confirmed me to the cause of preserving traditional marriage and the unique public goods it provides society.
Noelle added, "P.S. I'm also a fan of everything your NOM has done and will donate what little I can spare."
Wow, Noelle. Thank you. NOM exists because of people like you. Because you care. You care about truth. You care about civility, democracy, about justice and the common good. Against all probabilities you first felt the truth and then you found the truth, and knowing you are not alone, you are standing your ground for marriage. Thank you for making our day here at NOM with your letter.
I have to get back to manning the booth at CPAC. Until next week, semper fi!
God bless you and your family, always,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org,
P.S. If you want to swell Noelle's mite with one of your own, you can donate to NOM and help us build an army of marriage supporters $5, $10, and $100 at a time.
NOM Featured Interviews
Jennifer Roback Morse on National Marriage Week USA
Video here
Chuck Stetson on National Marriage Week USA
FOX News
February 12, 2010
Video here
NOM in the News
"Why Everyone's Sick of Washington"
Maggie Gallagher
New York Post
February 17, 2010
Cultural power, explains Hunter, is the power to "name reality." Culture is mostly created in urban centers and spread to the periphery. E.g.: Harvard Law School decides that gay marriage is a basic human right, which spreads through judges until it runs smack up into the one source of cultural power in America that isn't controlled by urban centers -- the American people.
Video interview: Christopher Plante of NOM--Rhode Island and Jimmy Lasalvia of GOProud
Politico.com
"Marriage Leads to Better Overall Health, Scholar Says"
Deseret News
February 16, 2010
"The most important thing is to speak up, in love, for the truth about marriage," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage and co-author with Waite on the book, "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially."
"There Is a Place for Gays in Conservative Politics, Says British Politician"
Talk Radio News Service
February 18, 2010
Conservatism is not only compatible with the principle of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but such equality is an essential element of conservatism, says prominent British politician Nick Herbert.
Herbert, who was elected and became the first openly gay conservative member of Parliament in 2005, participated in a panel discussion on Wednesday hosted by the Cato Institute, along with notable gay blogger Andrew Sullivan and National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher.
"Why Maggie's Wrong"
Chris Geidner
Metro Weekly
February 17, 2010
How can I write this so that Maggie Gallagher -- of National Organization for Marriage (NOM) infamy -- will understand?
A child loses his or her parents. That child is then an orphan. Still others are removed from their parent or parents' home for any of a number of reasons.
139 Comments
I am similar to Noelle. I went to a very liberal college, was registered as a liberal and then a democrat, etc. I've usually supported liberal causes, but I disagree very strongly with this one. Most of my friends support the gay rights agenda, but they are missing how it is eroding away our religious freedoms. It puts a divide between me and friends that I've had for years, but I can't help but stand up for these truths.
Thanks for all your work, Brian and Maggie. I can't imagine the kind of harrasment that you put up with every day just judging by what people write here.
NOM is speaking and reporting the truth. Truth that needs to be told all over this country. The inevitability of homosexual marriage is greatly exaggerated. Just ask the 31 states that have voted down this sham known as homosexual marriage.
We will stand, we will fight against these militants at all costs.
Thank you NOM for all that you do. You are truly doing God's work.
Your blood can boil all you want, but you can't use public money to carry out religiously blinkered services. there is no reason why Catholic Charities can't use their own money. No one is telling the Church how to run a charity, they are saying use our money , use our rules. Would you hire a contractor to build the house he wants or the house you want?
The real story here is that “As of February 1, the entire foster-care program – 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members, will be transferred to the National Center for Children and Families.” The National Center for Children and Families is run by Georgetown University, a Catholic University.
Once again, organized religion is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
I didn't know how else to convey this except to post it as a reply here . . .
I actually responded a few times to today's article in the Washington Post about Judge Holeman's tentative decision to not stop the DC gay marriage law from going into effect, and I thought you might find it helpful to read . . .
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2010/02/a_third_dc_judge_rules_against.html
Below is the most recent response I wrote. I do hope this helps.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a very real way the case Judge Holeman is hearing isn't about gay marriage at all; it's about the rights of the voters and the authority of the DC Charter as it relates to DC laws. His decision cannot be based on the issue about which the people wished to vote (unless it was an appropriations issue), but whether or not the Charter permits the Board of Elections to deny voters the right to put an issue - any issue -on the ballot if it ostensibly violates another DC statute.
The question before the court will be which prevails and whether the Council has the right to violate the charter if they think it is in the best interests of the people.
The judge can decide that there is a compelling reason to allow the Council and Board of Elections to violate the DC Charter, but he has to admit that denying the voters the right to put this question on the ballot does indeed violate the Charter. Basically, he has to deny the validity of the Charter if he rules that these so-called 'human rights' statutes carry greater weight.
His answer to the Council should be that, if they wanted to give those statutes the weight of the Charter, they should have amended the Charter to include them, and that no statute or law can carry greater weight than the Charter itself. This would be consistent with the California State Supreme Court ruling that the voters had the right to amend their state constitution because the ballot initiative process is PART of the state constitution.
Like it or not, we are a country of laws and Judge Holeman has to follow the law.
But what I object to most in this article is the clear impression that the judge has already made his decision in this case. He has not. He gave a TENTATIVE ruling on the request to stop this law from going into effect until a final decision is reached. I repeat, this was a TENTATIVE decision in which the judge decided that it would not be good to go against the elected state legislature. What he has to realize though, is that these legislators, in denying the voters the right to put this question on the ballot, actually violated the Charter - they violated the law. They think their decisions can overrule the Charter, rather than realizing that their decision has to be consistent with the Charter. They were wrong, and the judge will rule so. In the same way that Supreme Court decisions cannot violate the US Constitution, neither can this judges decision violate the DC Charter.
Thank you D.C. council for standing up for civil rights for all people, including gays. Religious liberty should never be used to discriminate against gays or any minority group. Let's not forget. Religion is a choice that people make. Being gay is not. No one chooses to be gay. That is why gays should be protected from discrimination and from having their rights taken away by the tryanny of the majority. Minority rights should NEVER be put up for a vote. That is Wrong! and unconstitutional.
Hands off DC, Brian Brown! Gay DC residents and their straight DC allies will not stand to be bullied by you!
Karen, good perspective!
"Thank you D.C. council for standing up for civil rights for all people"
Rob Capp, all people except the voters, which is just about everybody.
The people have a right to have a voice on moral issues. Gay is not race.
Morgan, asking you to put your ideas for change on the table for public scrutiny like everyone else is bullying? Nice try. This new law will affect everyone, not just your particular favorite group.
Good job, Karen.
* * *
Robb Capp said: "Religion is a choice that people make. Being gay is not. No one chooses to be gay."
Gay is a socio-political construct. It is a choice.
You may feel that same-sex sexual attraction is not a choice, but that is not the same as choosing membership in "the gay community" or identity group.
Meanwhile, each of us is born equal, of a man and a woman, and we are endowed with freedom of conscience. That is not a choice. It is a birthright. And that is directly embedded in the US Constitution. It is the foundation for all of our liberties and for our form of self-government.
Gayness is not so embedded for it is a form of factionalism and a peculiar kind of sectarianism. Contrary to your hostile remarks, the choice to adhere to gay identity politics does not trump the birthright of freedom of conscience.
* * *
Don,
Adoption services are licensed. It is not just about government funding (i.e. funding from taxpayers). The DC Council would tell Catholic agencies to implement anti-Catholic policies. If you want to drive adoption agencies out of adoption, you need a better reason than your form of gaycentric sectarianism.
There's nothing "anti-Catholic" about prohibiting Catholic agencies that take public monies from discriminating. They can no more deny adoptions to same-sex couples than they can deny adoptions to divorced and remarried couples, or to Atheist couples. Let's all obey the laws, shall we?
If the DC City Council can deny the people's civil right to vote on any law as specified in the the city's charter if they know the outcome won't go their way, then why have a charter at all?
If the final decision is to deny DC citizens their right to vote on the redefinition of marriage, then the Washington DC Home Rule Charter is as good as abolished!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=904988
It is not about the funds, Kevin, but about creating unnecessary obstacles to the license that enables agencies to provide adoption services.
There are other agencies that provide specialized adultcentric adoption services for gay clientle.
Catholic agencies, and others that are not under the thumb of gay identity politics, actually operate with a standard that goes far above that and are focussed on children in need. They more than meet the lower standards of the DC government.
By forcing Catholic Agencies out, the Council has done nothing -- a big fat zilch -- for children in need. On the contrary, the Council detracts from the well-being of children in DC.
Gay identity politics is not going to be the savior of children in the fostercare system. The licensing of adoption services is NOT a quota-based affirmative action program for needy adults. It has become the political weapon of choice for the gay activists in DC. Pathetic.
The people have no right to vote on other people's rights. If they did, we'd still have slavery in some parts of the country. And certainly segregation and a ban on interracial marriage. This is country founded on liberty and freedom for everyone. Gays included! People get to vote on many many things. Discrimination against a minority group should never be one of them.
Just because a minortiy of people want something does not mean that they should just get their way and ignore everybody else. If that were the case, then anyone from polygamists to pedophiles to the klu klux klan could start screaming they are being treated unfairly and that's this is unconstitutional, that is unconstitutional, etc. I refuse to stand by and let a group of people trample on my first amendment rights and my rights to vote just so they can have their way.
Interesting how the minority dicates to the majority and that somehow is not a form of enslavement.
Insteresting how the sex-segregative SSM idea, and idea that negates sex integration, one which promotes the supremacy of gay identity politics, is likened, somehow, to the repudiation of white supremacist identity politics and the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system that also selectively segregated the sexes and undermined responsible procreation.
SSMers also are against marriages that integrate sexual orientations -- just like the racialist stood against integration of the races. Such marriages, both the gaycentrists and the racialists insisted, where "sham" marriages.
And both sought to restrict freedom of conscience well beyond their corruption of the marriage law.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but DC residents elected DC's mayor and the DC council members, right? Pretty much knowing how progressive these councilmembers and mayor were, right? And now the DC Council and the Mayor have passed legislation allowing gays to get married just like straights. And now the conservatives want to overturn the elected official's legislation? Or, even weirder, conservatives now want Congress to step in and overturn what the city's own elected officials have done?
We live in a representative democracy. We elect representatives to govern on our behalf. Just as the DC council is doing.
Joe - Polygamists, pedophiles and the KKK, by definition and existance, hurt people (I'm going to assume I don't need to expand on that - other than I mean mentally, physically, or both). Gays and lesbians hurt no one. Thousands of gays and lesbians are living in committed relationships (or not - as are many straight people) in virtually every county in this country already. The only difference is do we give them all the 1,100 federal rights that come with marriage?
Emma, being an elected official does not give politicians carte blanche. The people can and do overrule their politicians, regardless of having elected them. The role of a representative is to represent ALL the people, not just some of the people. Clearly good people of D.C. who do not want to see the shennanigans of Massachusetts in their own schoolyards, have a right to oppose the gay agenda being imposed on them. SSM brings much more than an attack on marriage.
What is truly "weirder" is that the DC Charter is being over-ridden by representatives whose legislation is directly challenged by the consent of the governed.
TC Matthews, of course not. But having the right to put a voter initiative in a ballot doesn't mean having the right to put any old initiative on the ballot. When the board of elections, the mayor, the city council, and three judges come to the conclusion that your ballot initiative proposal flies in the face of a local human rights law that's been on the books for over thirty years, well, your initiative shouldn't be on the ballot.
Besides, quite a few Washingtonians (the good people of DC!) fully support marriage equality and have no problem with their gay neighbors getting hitched.
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think about civil unions?
chairm,
you have so lost touch with reality in the delusion of your insatiiable need to be right.
"Gay is a socio-political construct. It is a choice.
You may feel that same-sex sexual attraction is not a choice, but that is not the same as choosing membership in “the gay community” or identity group."
All one has to do is insert the word "straight" in place of "gay' or "same-sex" to understand just how ludicrous you are. I feel sorry for you and tc at this point, as you two are soing nothing more than word playing your way out of your bigorty and homophobia. History has branded members of the KKK, racists and misogynists. Mark my words, YOU SHALL SUFFER THE SAME FATE.
Back to the threats are we?
Don (wrote)
"Your blood can boil all you want, but you can’t use public money to carry out religiously blinkered services. there is no reason why Catholic Charities can’t use their own money. No one is telling the Church how to run a charity, they are saying use our money , use our rules. Would you hire a contractor to build the house he wants or the house you want?"
This is a distraction - The issue is not public funding but placing children in mother/father households.
Catholic Charities would gladly continue its foster care and adoption services in D.C. without public funds.
However: and this is important.
This is a question of Licensing - Will D.C. allow groups that place children exclusively with male/female couples to continue to do so.
The answer (as in Mass) has been NO...
So funding is a red herring... it is an issue of licensing NOT funding.
Straight is a socio-political construct. One designed as a false bookend for the gay identity group.
Straight is not the same as opposite-sex sexual attraction, which may or may not be inborn in the sense that gay advocates promise that same-sex sexual attraction is hypothetically inborn.
Fortunately, marriage includes neither a straigth crierion for eligiblity nor a gay criterion for ineligiblity. Instead, marriage integrates the sexes equally.
Emma,
What is the purpose of civil union? What are its essentials so that it can be distinguished from other types of arrangements or relationships that are not civil union?
I don't think that SSM under the name of civil union gets a pass just because of the different label. It may be justified. You need to provide that justification for the special status (if it is a special status) and for the boundaries around it.
Just for the record, Catholic Charities of Boston was placing children with same-sex couples for several decades, in compliance with state non-discrimination laws. It was only after Massachusetts began allowing same-sex couples to marry that local bishops got all in a tizzy and decided to stop the practice of placing children with gay couples. The adoption agency itself was taken aback by the bishops' decision. See this article from LifeSiteNews back in 2006, which has this to say:
"The bishops’ request was in stark contrast to the wishes of the agency itself, which voted unanimously in December to uphold the practice of placing children in homosexual homes."
Not everyone, not even all Catholics, not even all Catholic Charities employees, want to discriminate against gay couples.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022010.html
Chairm, you say "I don’t think that SSM under the name of civil union gets a pass just because of the different label. "
It's gratifying to get this out into the open: that it is not the term "marriage" with which you take issue, but rather the very idea of according same-sex couples any sort of civil equality.
I know this is what you have been skirting around for a long time now. Thank you for being honest about it.
I would guess that many NOM-supporters are in agreement with you, but this is an outdated view. Even in Texas, in a recent University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, Question 41 was answered thusly:
Q41. What is your opinion on gay marriage or civil unions?
28% Gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.
35% Gays and lesbians should have the right to civil unions but not marriage.
30% Gays and lesbians should not have the right to civil unions or marriage.
7% Don’t know
You're in the minority, Chairm. 63% (a majority even taking into account the +/- 3.46% margin of error) of Texas voters support legal equality for same-sex couples. The disagreement is merely in the naming of it.
Emma, you are mistaken about Boston Catholic Charities. Over at Opine Editorials we discussed that at length and our blogposts are in our archives under Catholic Charities.
The Bishop, and other faithful Catholics, were shocked that one or two such adoptions had been arranged very recently under the auspices of the Catholic agency. It was not an official policy, much less a longheld one, as your comment suggested, to enforce anti-Catholic policies on adoption services.
There was some misreporting at the time. The vote was not unanomous, for example, and there were rogue operatives working against the Bishop and against Catholic teachings.
It is simply a bad idea for government to try to set Catholic against Catholic through coercive measures.
Emmas,
I asked a question. You replied with a false accusation.
You've read my part in discussions in which I have defended protection equality for vulnerable families that are outside of marriage. I've been forthright and directly honest about that.
Civil equality does not mean showing favoritism based on identity politics. Hence the questions I asked of you about your justification for civil union status.
In a previous discussion, in which you participated, I also asked for the jsutification for domestic partnership. No SSMer has grabbed the opportunity to make the case for such a status -- call it whatever you wish.
If you honestly believe that gayness is the justification, then, just say so and make a forthright argument on that basis.
Society may justly discriminate between marriage and other stuff. I've made my case for the special reason for special status -- the core meaning of this social institution.
Now, in turn, I've asked, with interest in yor viewpoint, for your explanation for justly discriminating between civil union and other stuff; or between domestic partnership and other stuff.
I favor civil equality. I oppose favoritism in the name of gay identity politics. If you support civil equality AND favoritism, then, it is up to you to be honest and explain yourself with greater care. If you are against favoritism, but for civil union, then, explain its purpose and the eligiblity criteria. Simple stuff, given how you have invested so much in the idea.
Throwing false accusations around just does not cut it, Emma.
I'm sorry, Chairm, what was the false accusation?
In Texas the people approved the state's marriage amendment by 80%.
When a survey asks leading questions and gives a middle option, it usually encourages positive responses for that option because people like to think there is a compromise solution.
But the SSM campaign has shown that 'civil union' is not a viable political compromise. It is held out as a wonderful thing before it is enacted but then it suddenly becomes a horribly bigoted burden that must be overthrown to get SSM merged with marriage any which way.
Sadly, if there was a chance for a civil union status -- that was not gaycentric -- it has been tarnished by what has occured in Vermont, Connecticut, California, and places like Canada and Holland. Civil union is SSM in all but name. The SSM campaign has shown that civil union is an obvious trojan horse and is not an honestly proposed compromise with a principled basis in civil equality.
But I do think that there could be justification for it. I have asked. You haven't bothered to give justification. That does not seem to me to be the way of an honest participant in discussion of serious ideas.
The invite still stands, Emma, because you do seem in earnest, all things considered.
To answer your question: What is the purpose of a civil union?
None, other than to bestow upon two fully formed, independent adults ready and willing to commit their lives to each other all the rights and responsibilities that certain people refuse to call marriage.
You're going to go into your thing now about defining same-sex partners in opposition to all other "possible living arrangements," and all that foggy wordy stuff, largely because you are incapable of seeing that two women or two men might feel about each other the way that a husband and wife feel about each other.
That's fine. You can keep doing that. But that's not going to make anything go away.
I think one reason civil unions aren’t enough for same-sex couples is that they create a second-class status, like separate but equal facilities for whites and blacks. To suggest that straight people “own” marriage, just because they’ve traditionally been the only participants ignores the fact that they’ve been the only participants permitted. It is a Catch-22 to say, tradition requires that marriage be limited to opposite-sex partners because that’s the way it’s always been. I don’t really understand the objection to same-sex couples marrying, in a world where straight people get married and divorced at the drop of a hat, marry several times in a lifetime, cheat on their spouses, etc.
Strict adherence to marriage ideals should apply to the majority of the practitioners, not just a small minority.
I don't think that "straight people own marriage".
Just because your beliefs and actions may be driven by gay identity politics does not mean that those with whom you disagree are imitating you like a mirror image.
Emma,
You just admitted there is no purpose to a Civil Union.
Marriage is established to protect and produce future citizens. That is a very legit state purpose. If you don't think marriage serves that purpose - you should argue for the abolishment of the institution - not the expansion of an irrational entitlement to state benefits.
Au contraire, fundie. Civil unions are a separate-but-equal sort of scenario, which of course eventually are demonstrated to be inherently unequal but serve a purpose during times of transition.
Kevin - The vast majority of Same Sex families are the result of broken Hetero familes - not a visit to Dr. Moreau. The Dept of Health and Human Service NIS-4 study shows kids are better off in Biologically intact families. Since marriage is about protecting children adults should stay in the marriage that produced them. It is a purely an adult conceit to suggest that a child will be better off if the partner who left the marriage to pursue a same sex relationship is allowed to marry that new partner. The child knows perfectly well that the new relationship, whatever you call it, whoever is involved in it, exists to satisfy the adults. That is part of the trauma a child suffers from a divorce; that the parents are putting their interests before the child’s. Yours is an absurd argument, that the child’s interests are somehow protected by society sanctifying that new relationship. The child’s certainly are not in 99% of the cases, regardless if that new relationship is heterosexual or homosexual. It’s an argument that could only be thought up by someone who clearly doesn’t care a whit about the child.
Fundie
Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about. Same-sex couples are raising children. Fact. Kids are better off when they have the security of having married parents, who are more likely to remain a couple than unmarried parents. Fact.
Even if you are correct, that children raised by same-sex couples originated in an opposite-sex marriage, so what? Married binds parents together. That’s good for kids. I think we need to put the needs of children first, not whether you like or dislike their parents.
“Yours is an absurd argument, that the child’s interests are somehow protected by society sanctifying that new relationship.”
It’s not absurd in the least; it’s exactly why society “sanctifies” the opposite-sex marriage, as it pertains to children: it provides those children with more security. And that’s a good thing, at least for those of us that love children.
Kevin, society will be more than happy to "sanctify" the marriages of gay and lesbian parents, so long as both a husband and a wife are incuded.
This whole "two moms, no dad" business is a ridiculous charade that punishes kids.
If Johnny is being harmed because his mommy isn't married, you need to ask HER why she refuses to give the boy a father. Not why "society" won't pretend that a redundant mom is just as good.
Kevin (writes)
"Fact. Kids are better off when they have the security of having married parents, who are more likely to remain a couple than unmarried parents. Fact."
All the studies that have been done and the social scientific consensus that has emerged on the importance of marriage to child well being has been generated around the male/female married couple in a low conflict marriage.
To presume that this applies to same-sex couples is just that, a presumtion not a "fact".
Good faith advocates of same-sex childrearing readily admit that not enough data exists at this early time to come to any solid conclusions about how same-sex reared children will fit into the heiarchy.
Marty
If society really cared about children, and some states and many people are coming to this conclusion, that if same-sex couples are going to raise children, those children would be better off if those same-sex couples were married. Having married parents is better than having unmarried parents, generally. Marriage binds a couple together, for better or worse, in good times and bad, through thick and thin. Being legally married forces a couple, especially those raising children, to solve their problems together and resolve their differences. It’s harder to part company. When they stay together to raise the children, that’s better for the children. Again, try to think of what’s best for children, ok? You may not like gay people but try to put that aside as your gift to their children.
Fitz
Read some of Maggie Gallagher’s excellent writings on this topic. Her research studies married versus unmarried couples. The difference in outcomes for children is astounding. There’s no logical reason to think that gender plays any role in the “married versus unmarried” comparison. And I’m not willing to gamble with the well-being of children for lack of evidence. It’s a Catch-22 for these kids: we don’t let their parents marry, so we’ll never have adequate research to determine if same-sex married couples do better with their children than unmarried same-sex couples. Given what we know for opposite-sex couples, the only moral choice is to make same-sex marriage available, so that the children of same-sex couples have the same potential outcomes as the children of married opposite-sex couples.
A large problem with this whole discussion (and don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's just great to have kids) is that many marriage do not lead to procreation, for various reasons. The couple is too old, the couple is infertile, the couple just plain doesn't want to have kids. In which case the anti-equality folk lose their entire main argument ( "It's all about the children!!!") and it becomes purely discrimination with no rational justification what so ever.
Kevin: "Having married parents is better than having unmarried parents, generally. Marriage binds a couple together, for better or worse, in good times and bad, through thick and thin. Being legally married forces a couple, especially those raising children, to solve their problems together and resolve their differences. It’s harder to part company. When they stay together to raise the children, that’s better for the children."
I agree with every single word.
"Again, try to think of what’s best for children, ok?"
Why is this MY problem? Why aren't you asking the children's parents -- who refuse to marry -- to do what's best?
Marriage doesn't need to be redefined to do what's best for kids. Adults simply need to do the right thing and marry.
That they choose not to is a liberty excercised, not a right denied.
That they do so because of gender bias, and against the best interests of their children, is abhorrent.
Marty, until organizations like NOM start targeting ALL unmarried biological parents, it is nothing more than pure discrimination to focus on unmarried biological parents who also happen to be gay. And not only is it just plain discriminatory, but it DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE given that most unmarried biological parents are straight.
Whats in the best interest of the children? Why don't you ask them. Majority of kids with homosexual parents are miserable in general. They don't like to invite their friends over, They don't like their parents flaunting their gayness. If other kids found out about their parent's secret, they would be humiliated. When parents announce their gayness it is shocking to the kids and causes harm.
Being married in the traditional sense is good for kids. Kids with gay parents are far worse off because of the secrets they have to keep and it ruins their confidence, confuses them. Why is my Dad or mom gay? Am I? Biology teaches me different.
Kevin (writes)
Fitz
"Read some of Maggie Gallagher’s excellent writings on this topic. Her research studies married versus unmarried couples. The difference in outcomes for children is astounding. There’s no logical reason to think that gender plays any role in the “married versus unmarried” comparison."
I have read Ms. Gallaghers work as well as the many of the original studies & the sociologists and other scientists who compiled and generated the consensus.
You are conflating and misusing the data. It is very specific and deliniates between married biological opposite sex families with their natural children as the #1 predictor of child outcomes.
To simply assume that the presence of a marriage liceance is the important variable for child outcomes is both nieve & self serving. No competant or honest gay advocate has done this or tried to get away with this at trial.
Same-sex couples cannot have children together. Most children in smae-sex scouple homes are from previous marriages. they are no more disadvataged than children in divorced homes. They have a relationship with their natural mother or father through visitation &* custody arrangments.
To intentionally deprive a child of a mother or father and a married natural family is proven to be a worse predictor of child outcomes.
The entire "reasoning" you are operating on is explotative of child well-being in the name of same-sex "marriage".
If you wish the best for children you would not condone same-sex couples who bring children into these enviroments.
You may want same-sex "marriage" whatever end, but try to put that aside as your gift to the children.
Marty
If a couple isn’t allowed by law to marry, you can’t blame them. Blame the society that says some children should have married parents but other children don’t deserve to have married parents.
Adam
“Majority of kids with homosexual parents are miserable in general.”
Even if that were true, how does outlawing same-sex marriage remedy the problem? Are you advocating that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce or mate? That would be quite an extreme point of view I think.
“Being married in the traditional sense is good for kids.”
Exactly. When the parents are married, it creates a more stable environment for the children.
Fitz
“You are conflating and misusing the data”
Not at all. Ms. Gallagher’s work with opposite-sex couples controlled for other variables and tested for marital status: married or unmarried. There’s no reason to believe her work would not apply to same-sex couples and frankly, I’m not willing to put children at risk because I want to second guess this point. So long as society condones same-sex couples raising children, it makes no sense to deprive those children of the healthiest possible outcomes, which occur when the parents are married, compared to unmarried.
“Most children in smae-sex scouple homes are from previous marriages. they are no more disadvataged than children in divorced homes.”
So that’s it? Just so they’re no worse off than the kids of divorced parents, it’s ok? That’s not good enough for me. I see no reason why ALL children shouldn’t benefit from having married parents. It is grossly unfair to the children of same-sex couples, since research shows that children are much better off with married parents.
Emma,
Your remarks indicate you are against civil equality and for favoritism based on gay identity politics.
Try to speak to that directly.
Kevin writes
"Not at all. Ms. Gallagher’s work with opposite-sex couples controlled for other variables and tested for marital status: married or unmarried. There’s no reason to believe her work would not apply to same-sex couples and frankly, I’m not willing to put children at risk because I want to second guess this point. So long as society condones same-sex couples raising children, it makes no sense to deprive those children of the healthiest possible outcomes, which occur when the parents are married, compared to unmarried."
"There’s no reason to believe her work would not apply to same-sex couples"
Ms. Gallagher herself says "her work" does not apply to same-sex couples.
Your being obviously and intentionally abtuse. Either that or your delusional.
If a man is different than a woman: than two men are different than two woman. and each is distinct from a man & a woman.
You are ignorant of the social scientific debate. Even pro-gay advocates of same-sex "marriage" readily concede that no competant honest rational person would seek to conflate the wealth of data on the natural married family to same-sex couples.
To do so would to ignore the very distinction that is being called into question. You can no more assume the data applies to same-sex couples than you can assume it applies to polygamous families.
Chairm: you are incorrect. I believe that couples who wish to marry are entitled to civil marriage. That seems pretty direct to me.
Emma, that was evasive. That is the signal that you are now conceding that you can provide no rational basis for civil union.
I disagree that that's evasive. I'm not the one equivocating and hemming and hawing about what defines a couple, what nonmarriage is, what same-sex coupledom is, etc. I'm of the opinion that if a couple wants to head on down to the courthouse and get hitched, they have that right.
You think so too, just only some couples, not all couples.
A key point in the SSM debate concerns whether homosexuality is inherited or has a genetic component. If it is inherited and genetic, then it is an immutable characteristic and it warrants protection under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Because of this consititutional protection, gay males have been arguing for decades that the preference is genetic, often citing with studies performed by psychology professors (often gay male professors) to back up the claim. Of course those who have even a modicum of sophistication would recognize that such psychological studies can be designed to prove virtually anything and interpreted in any way the "researcher" desires. That is why psychological studies have provided negligible progress in the understanding of human nature over the past century.
Also, note that virtually all the ancestors of every gay male (with the possible exception of raped female ancestors) at least occasionally willingly engaged in heterosexual sex.
So a better explanation is that some humans, maybe all humans, are quite adaptable sexually and may come to enjoy homosexual sex given certain experiences and social environments, and that legitimizing such sex probably will increase the likelihood that young people have such experiences and begin to self-identify as "gay."
Another problem with the gay male assertion of genetic influence is that many lesbians claim it is a choice, a lifestyle choice, to live without men, and that it is not genetically determined. What backs this up is that most women who choose the lesbian lifestyle do so after being with men, many after marrying men and having children with them. It becomes even more difficult to accept that lesbianism is genetically determined when one recognizes that lesbians regularly use devices to simulate relations with males, which would indicate a genetic predisposition to enjoy such relations and sensations, which contradicts genetic lesbianism because such devices did not exist during the period in which humans evolved, and so the predisposition arose because of positive experiences with males.
You are not being forthright about what you mean by 'same-sex couple'. You keep dodging. Be direct.
Your last sentence above suggests to me that you oppose all lines of eligibility.
My previous comment is in reply to Emma who either is against all eligiblity lines or agrees that just showing up is no trump card.
Chairm, you know when two people say, "We're a couple?" Well, when both of them are the same sex, that's a same-sex couple. Does that clear things up for you?
No, that's your wordy way of also evading. You and Emma make a good couple.
That's funny.
They may be a "couple", but only one of them is a "parent".
"Two moms, no dad" is a ridiculous piece of sexist fiction.
It helps to put the origination of traditional marriage into context. Men and women throughout human history would have sexual relations and the natural and inevitable result would be children. When humans lived in small groups, or tribes, the children would generally be raised communally without marriage as it offered little or no value. However, as ideas of private property and separate families with children evolved, marriage became, universally, a significant part of human relations as it aided in providing for the welfare of children. It also provided individual emotional stability as it added structure (allowing for the development of well-justified expectations and long-term plans for the future) and emotional nurturing to individual lives and generally improved social stability. Outlawing polygamy appeared to increase the degree to which marriage achieved the goals of stability and child welfare. Marriage for childless couples was accepted as there was always the possibility of adoption and even without adoption there appeared to be no harm and possibly a net benefit in sanctioning such marriages, particularly in societies that outlawed sex outside of marriage.
It also helps to put the movement for same sex marriage (SSM) into context. Gay men never really showed much interest in legalizing gay marriage throughout the centuries in any human society. Gay men did not have children and there was never really much point or net benefit in entering into a gay marriage. The lesbian movement, which benefited greatly from the support of the mainstream feminist movement (such support being crucial in the advances in "gay rights" over the past few decades), did bring SSM into the discussion and into the public consciousness. That is because women have the children and usually get custody of children after a divorce.
When women depended on men financially, there were never really many lesbians, for obvious reasons. Now that women no longer depend on men, the incidence of lesbianism has exploded, not because women who have genetic predispositions towards lesbianism are now "free to be who they are," but because sexually adaptable female human beings now feel more pressure to choose lesbianism than to choose heterosexuality. By choosing lesbianism a girl or woman can "prove" she is rebellious, a free-thinker, courageous, open-minded, and wise to the millennia-old "paternalistic" and "patriarchal" efforts by men to dominate "womyn," and thereby gain more respect from most other women and even from some soft-minded men. Also, modern technology ensures that if she does make the lesbian choice she does not miss out on any physical sensations or lose her ability to procreate.
So, we have reached a sort of perfect storm, as a cultural environment that promotes victimhood and the superficial righteous indignation arising from self-identifying as a member of a victimized group, in a society with a militant feminist lesbian movement that is at war with men and boys and actively spreads hatred and increases mistrust of males and promotes ideas about a future all-female human race, leads to a push for lesbian SSM to remove the last barriers towards creating an ever-lasting division between males and females built on hostility and resentment.
This is all very disturbing for a large number of reasons, but what may be most troubling is that this SSM movement, if successful, will go very far towards dissolving what is left of the male-female bond, such bond being the most fundamental bond in society and one that underlies virtually all social cooperation and feelings of solidarity. Once this dissolution occurs, it will be difficult to go back, as the society will be pressured to disintegrate with trends toward ever-increasing violence and chaos. All that would hold it together would be power and fear, and a the development of a fascist police state will become very likely. The bonds have already been considerably weakened, and a significant amount of loss of solidarity has already occurred, as our society has become, and is continuing to become, a more cruel and unforgiving place.
John
I find your "take" to be very interesting indeed. Seriously, I have heard consitutional law proffesors with an inside view of lesbianism/feminism in our universities say practically the same thing.
Please visit our blog Opine Editorials and chime in so I can review your sources - Do you have your own blog??
So we have established that Emma and Dexter can count to two. And that they are very shy about saying what they mean by repeating the "same-sex couple" mantra. The shyness is not due to a fear of saying that phrase too often.
Chairm, it might be helpful if you could explain your confusion about couples. A same-sex couple is the same as any couple. Kind of like a brown-eyed couple -- like other couples, but with brown eyes.
Please define a couple, in your understanding, as this seems to be where the confusion lies.
Canadian studies show that marriage law may be seriously flawed. Same sex our gender cannot be easily defined. The study reported that gender is not binary, there are many scientific gender variant individuals to assign a "same sex" category. No one knows what a "same sex couple" really is. Genetic, biological, endocrinological, and physical variations make gender - sex determination almost impossible.
Emma, are two left shoes a "pair of shoes"? No. Sometimes two halves don't make a whole -- sometimes it requires two opposite halves.
Jeri: "sex determination almost impossible"
And yet every single one of us -- without exception -- is the result of the union of exactly one man and one woman.
Stay confused if you want to, but the rest of us aren't.
Emma, it is your phrase. Explain it more clearly.
Same-sex couple.
It is your talisman.
Marty, correction below... do you disagree with the change? "And yet every single one of us — without exception — is the result of the union of exactly [THE SPERM AND EGG] of one man and one woman."
Now we have to ask what technology can do with a sperm and egg (locations that sell them can be found on the internet).
Whence the sperm and egg? Not from computer code found on the internet.
Some search the internet for reproductive centers and locations... computer code... not so much
For illustration... the google search computer code, html, and software involved on the internet does produce a striking result:
"Donor Sperm, Donor Egg, Surrogacy & Embryo Adoption Resources ...
Sperm banks listing and service key, donor egg resources, surrogacy and embryo adoption ... Portland Center for Reproductive Medicine (egg donation program) ..."
Jeri, you make no sense whatsoever.
No jeri, we don't have to ask anything about technology. Sperm comes from Men, Eggs come from women. Human beings -- every single one -- come from one of each. No exceptions, no confusion.
Surely your parents taught you this when you were 12?
Marty, yes, we know where sperm and eggs come from, but they in and by themselves, do not a marriage make. Does not technology make use of a sperm and eqq to same sex parents as one means to parent children, embryos planted in the womb? Is a father really required most of the time or just for a few minutes?
Emma,
In your silence, are you conceding to Jeri the work of explaining the phrase in which you have staked your entire argument?
Same-sex couple. It means so much to your viewpoint and yet you wish for others to devine its meaning through ESP or something.
I’m not sure it really matters who conceived or birthed a child, but rather, who is raising that child. Since having married parents brings security to a child, it is rather odd to argue against this security for the children being raised by same-sex couples while encouraging it for the children of opposite-sex couples.
I can’t think of a good reason why some children deserve the many benefits of having married parents, while other children do not.
So jeri and Kevin think it's just fine to create fatherless or motherless families, if the "parents" are gay.
And to think! Some people actually have the gall to suspect that GLBT activists are working to undermine the family!
Marty, are you saying "Octa-mom" is gay? Certainly no "father" in that household that i can see? Can you prove otherwise? "Octa-mom" can go marry someone of the opposite sex, not a requirement though. Apparently there is no father requirement in marriage law.
No complaints from Marty about a single heterosexual woman having children without the father around, only using waste products.
Funny, I've never heard anyone on this board support anything but a mom and a dad raising kids... you must be new.
Or another retread, TC, whose taken a turn at juggling the monikers.
Kevin: what do you mean, precisely, by "same-sex couple"?
Jeri: the first principle of responsible procreation (which is central to the marriage idea -- see the marital presumption of paternity) is that each of the parents -- mom and dad -- are responsible for the children they bring into this world; and responsible to each other as part of that procreative duo. The marriage idea is that they both stick around, as a twosome, to support each other and their children; and not just during pregnancy and childbirth but also to be responsible for the child's well-being, education, and moral formation; and not just during that child's youth but well-beyond that child's entry into marriage and parenthood. That's the marriage idea passed from generation to generation.
Jeri, do you have a principled basis to oppose the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood? Marriage makes that normative. What would you propose as a substitute for it?
You do realize that lone individuals who use 3rd party procreation are partaking in extramarital procreation; married couples who use such a practice are also partaking in extramarital procreation.
You are pointing away from the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. Pointing, instead, at nonmarital practices or trends actually undermines your intervening comments.
No one uses third party procreation for the sake of yet-to-be-conceived chidren. The choice is not made in response to a child nor even in anticipation of a child on her way; but rather the inverse of that. It can come very close to human manufacture.
Even in the most seemingy benign of instances, it is an adultcentric choice regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual -- and regardless of that individual's identity group -- and, yes, regardless of whether or not that individual has a registered relationship with the government, marital or whatever.
No one-sexed scenario can create a child without the other sex. Your own comments are an open, if inadvertent, concession on that societally significant point.
* * *
The man-woman union is comprised of a couple of people whose conjugal type of relationship provides for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood and the integration of the sexes. The man makes the woman his wife; the woman makes the man her husband. It takes two: two sexes to integrate and to provide for responsible procreation.
Jeri, what does "same-sex couple" mean to you, in terms of SSM?
The decision to form a fatherless or motherless home for a child -- by design and not due to dire circumstances or tragedy -- is an exception that ought to be treated as an exception, not as a new general rule.
Just because a society does not outlaw something, does not mean that something merits preferential status, such as society accords the social institution of marriage. Marriage is not merely a tolerated institution, like, say, the practice of using 3rd party gametes to create children for one-sexed scenarios (lone individual for exampe). Marriage is more than a protective institution for identity groups or for exceptions to the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood. No, marriage is a preferential institution -- it has special meaning and thus merits its special status in our laws, traditions, and customs.
So if you support SSM for the sake of an identity group -- tolerance and/or protection -- you are unnecessarily attacking the special status of marriage. Outside of marriage society already has provisions for designated beneficiaries that are available regardless of sexual orientation or identity group. Available for lone individuals or other formations. Available especially for vulnerable families with children outside of marriage.
Instead of pulling down marriage, try to make the case of building up the form of nonmarriage you favor. But start with the essentials of the type of relationship or arrangement you have in mind.
If the use of 3rd party procreation is the essential requirement; or if the presence of adopted children is that essential requirement, then sayso and go from there. But don't be so vague as to make your SSM idea indistinguishable from the rest of nonmarriage. That vagueness is not made more compelling by a reliance on gay identity politics. Rather the opposite.
"..the first principle of responsible procreation (which is central to the marriage idea — see the marital presumption of paternity) is that each of the parents — mom and dad — are responsible for the children they bring into this world; and responsible to each other as part of that procreative duo."
3rd party gametes do not a parent make, in my view. There has to be more, perhaps what is in the hearts of the parents that take responsibility for their children. Be they same sex, opposite sex, or single parents.
"Central to whose marriage idea? Who determines this 'official marriage idea' this for civil society? Whose idea is it anyway?
You acknowledge that fatherless and motherless homes are not the case, and propose a new rule of law perhaps for the following? "is an exception that "ought" to be treated as an exception, not as a new general rule."
I would ask if this is really true? Has it been proven or is it identity group rhetoric? "Instead of pulling down marriage, try to make the case of building up the form of non-marriage."
"The man-woman union is comprised of a couple of people whose conjugal type of relationship provides for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood and the integration of the sexes. The man makes the woman his wife; the woman makes the man her husband. It takes two: two sexes to integrate and to provide for responsible procreation."
This is certainly one form of a relationship that can be included in a marriage category. But who determines or defines in law this concept of responsible procreation. Why is it not there today?
Seems like a political term of an identity group trying to usurp itself into existing marriage law, but I dunno.
Jeri, what does “same-sex couple” mean to you, in terms of SSM? I admit I have no idea whatsoever what SSM is. I thin that about 18k folks are considered same sex couples in California by their legislature and are "Married" if that helps. Not this weird SSM thingy to my knowledge, but Married. I scratch my head and look to Washington DC and the record setting number of "Marriages" that are going to take place March 20. I assume (yes I admit I don't know for sure) that these are same sex couples, doing this "Marriage" thing.
This would be an excellent question to pose to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, who must know what same sex couples are - if he is going to allow their "Marriages" to be recognized in his state. But again, I dunno if he really knows one when he sees one....
Jeri, Octo-mom isnt married, and she isn't demanding that society treat her as if she were.
And as abhorrent as what she did is, it isn't illegal... you'd expect Kevin to be demanding that she and other single mothers be treated as if they were actually married! Thankfully, that isn't the case, and society is generally apalled by her selfish behavior.
Also, your opinion that a father's contribution is mere "waste products" speaks volumes. Your Dad must be very proud!
Jeri, I'd also suggest that you do a google search for "donor conceived persons" and find out for yourself how the children of "waste products" feel about the cruel and unusual situation they've been put in.
I'm sorry, but your gender bias -- bigotry even -- can never justify what is being done here. 100 years from now, we will look back in shame and horror.
"Emma, are two left shoes a “pair of shoes”? No. Sometimes two halves don’t make a whole — sometimes it requires two opposite halves."
Marty, for people with two left feet, sure, they probably want a pair of left shoes. Would you amend the Constitution to ban such pairs?
Marti, you claim that while what Octomom did may have been abhorrent to you, it is not illegal. Gay couples marrying may be abhorrent to you, but it also is no longer universally illegal. This is just something you will have to come to terms with.
And if you guys continue to make the bizarre argument that "same-sex couple" doesn't mean anything (and what I mean by "same-sex couple" is exactly the same as what I would mean by any "couple"-- it is you NOMers who are insisting there is a difference, apparently based on the ability to procreate despite the fact that clearly not all couples, gay or straight, have the desire or the ability to procreate), you just continue to demonstrate that your arguments are not based on logic but rather on dislike. Which is not a basis for civil marriage and federal or state law.
Still waiting for some condemnation from you Emma, after that request for gay activist activities in the schools and elsewhere, all of a sudden, silence ?
That's telling.
Marty, my thoughts are that it takes more than bodily waste donor to be a parent. Sure, one can produce a child, and "mom and dad" or what someone thinks marriage ought to me is currently a legal requirement in these situations. More importantly, are gay and lesbians good parents? Is there a way to sort fact from rhetoric? My opinion or yours, take your pick, neither counts for anything except at the voting booth. The final determination is based on the quality of evidence for a more factual determination.
Emma, I read some of this gay activist activity, actually agree with the pamphlet, marriage for homosexuals or no. Where is the school district in all of this? Where is parent participation in the school district curriculum?
To blame it all on homosexuals and their marriages seems a little sophistic don't ya think?
My apologies to Emma, I met Samantha in the post above.
“The marriage idea is that they [the parents] both stick around, as a twosome, to support each other and their children; and not just during pregnancy and childbirth but also to be responsible for the child’s well-being, education, and moral formation; and not just during that child’s youth but well-beyond that child’s entry into marriage and parenthood. That’s the marriage idea passed from generation to generation.”
Perfect! This is a marvelous description of the role of marriage in creating a secure environment for children! And that includes the children of same-sex couples, who are not to be disfavored in comparison to the children of opposite-sex couples.
As the children of same-sex couples start to sue the government for Equal Protection, it will be interesting to see which group or groups step forward to “defend” marriage from the rights of the children of same-sex couples, who are being denied access to the benefits of marriage. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the lawyer who has to make the case that the state has an interest in seeing the children of opposite-sex, but not same-sex, couples, do well in life!
Chairm: what do you mean, what do I mean, precisely, by “same-sex couple”?
Emma, some people may feel more comfortable wearing two left shoes, and that's fine. But they still aren't equal to "a pair of shoes" and shouldn't be labeled as such.
Jeri,
You said: 'But who determines or defines in law this concept of responsible procreation. Why is it not there today?"
The marital presumption of paternity is hardly a new invention. But let's pretend that it is "not there today" or that you have managed to wish it away.
What is the default you think exists today?
Jeri,
You said: "3rd party gametes do not a parent make, in my view."
What, in your view, would make gametes '3rd party' given your earlier exchange with Marty regarding procreation and the internet?
Marty,
please support your value judgment expressed @ 11:28am on 2/28. Can you?
Emma,
You said: "And if you guys continue to make the bizarre argument that “same-sex couple” doesn’t mean anything (and what I mean by “same-sex couple” is exactly the same as what I would mean by any “couple”– it is you NOMers who are insisting there is a difference, apparently based on the ability to procreate despite the fact that clearly not all couples, gay or straight, have the desire or the ability to procreate), you just continue to demonstrate that your arguments are not based on logic but rather on dislike. Which is not a basis for civil marriage and federal or state law."
1. I did not say that 'same-sex couple' does not mean anything. I asked you to say what it means to you. Your meaning is not self-evident.
2. You have made your meaning even more vague when you said that you mean "exactly the same as what I would mean by any 'couple'".
Okay, so you part from the CA supremes and the Iowa supremes and the leaders of the SSM campaign all of whom have emphasized same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex romance.
You are being much more honest than they in your use of the phrase "same-sex couple" to mean "any couple".
You answered the age old question: what has sex got to do with it? Your answer is: nothing.
So you have revealed, again, the profound flaw in your viewpoint by which you have failed to distinguish between the broad category of nonmarraige and the type of one-sexed arrangement you have in mind.
* * *
You said: "it is you NOMers who are insisting there is a difference, apparently based on the ability to procreate despite the fact that clearly not all couples, gay or straight, have the desire or the ability to procreate".
The type of relationship that is known as marriage has a sexual basis which indeed does entail the vigorously enforced provision for responsible procreation.
When people enter the social institution of marriage, they consent to the marital presumption of paternity. Man and woman integrate on many levels that are not forced by the Government's big hairy hand.
The core of marriage makes normative the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood. That hardcore SSMers today wish to deride that as "dislike" or animus or bigotry is a testament to the corruptive influence of gaycentric identity politics.
When asked to state the essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind, Emma, you run scared and flee from the challenge that your own argumentation makes to your vague SSM idea.
You need to grasp this fact: the defense of marriage does not declare that the government forces married people to procreate. Stop flogging that strawman of your own making. Assume that we all understand that some people experience infertility; that some people do not intend to have children; and that some people marry for some fairly superficial reasons; and some for awful reasons.
The marriage law does not empower a fertility squad to roam the countryside to peer into the bedroom windows of marital homes. The law does not empower a panel of busy-bodies to conduct mind-reading tests to determine who intends to procreate; the law does not force individuals to marry against their will nor does it force individuals to change sexual orientation or identity group.
So you can stop attributing to the defenders of marriage all these nonsensical strawman arguments that have kept the pro-SSM fires burning in the blogosphere.
There is positive justification for the social institution of marriage; there is positive justification for its special status; there is positive justification for the eligibility lines drawn around marriage.
None of that applies automatically to the conceptual mess that is the SSM idea.
But concerns about protecting vulnerable families that exist outside of marriage? This justifies protections. But not special treatment; and certainly not the same status as marriage.
Protection equality does not depend on gay identity nor on sexual orientation. To show such great favoritism, irrational favoritism, for a gay subset is not really the just cause you imagine it to be.
Marriage is a preferential staus. It is so because of its core meaning. That meaning is embedded in our laws, traditions, and customs to such an extent that its roots make marriage a fundamental right in our constitutional jurisprudence.
Nonmarriage may be accorded a protective status; or, in some cases, a tolerative status based on it being lawful and not criminalized. Protective status is not punishment. Indeed, in CA domestic partnership extended protections far exceeding justification on the basis of gay identity. But that's a political compromise that SSMers have now tossed in the dustbin and denounced as being based on dislike, or animus, or bigotry.
The obvious effect of the SSM campaign's intended goal is to demote marriage from its preferential status. To drop it to a mere protective status. One which cannot fairly be denied to the rest of nonmarriage. Yet SSMers pretend as if there is some great unspoken societal significance to "same-sex couple" that does not also apply to the rest of nonmarriage. That's just hypocritical and it screams political favoritism.
That is reinforced by the pro-SSM campaign's rhetoric and its various attempts to abolish the core meaning of marriage as bigotry. Their goal is to reduce marriage from its preferential status, to deny it even protective status, and to deny it even a tolerative status. No, the SSM idea must recruit the big hairy arm of Government to crush the marriage idea and to force it from the public square.
Such radical implications of the SSM idea are recognized by marriage defenders. This is gay identity politics on the march. The nonmarriage purpose is to inoculate gay identity politics from dissent and opposition. No dissent, and no opposition, is to be deemed legitimate -- not morally, not ethically, not religiously, not philosophically, and certainly not lawfully.
The seemingly innocuous phrase "same-sex couple" does not just mean "any couple" but rather it means that the union of husband and wife must be rendered as meaningless as the SSM idea. And in its place must be entrenched the force that compels SSMers to deride the marriage idea: the supremacy of gay identity politics over our laws, our culture, and all of our freedoms.
But marriage defenders have stiff backbones and strong hearts and a world of empirical evidence and solid reasoning with which to resist the special substitution of marriage.
Heh,
Emma have you ceded to Kevin the job of saying what "same-sex couple" means in your viewpoint?
With friends like that ...
“The seemingly innocuous phrase “same-sex couple” does not just mean “any couple” but rather it means that the union of husband and wife must be rendered as meaningless as the SSM idea.”
Those of us who support marriage equality don’t want opposite-sex marriage to go away, Chairm. We just want all couples not otherwise prohibited (meaning, the state has a good/rational reason to prohibit other couples) to be able to marry. It’s a good idea for those couples and it’s a great idea for the children of those couples.
You're playing with another strawman, Kevin, since I did not say that.
Despite many opportunities to give a good/rational reason to treat the one-sexed arrangement differently from the rest of nonmarriage, you've failed to do so.
Your comments show that you want government to render marriage as meaningless as the SSM idea.
Meanwhile, you can't find the words to say what "same-sex couple" means, much less what SSM actually means, in your viewpoint. So you use the magical incantation, SSM is marriage, and demonstrate the point about making marriage as meaningless as the SSM idea.
You are stuck pivoting in circles.
And I invite you to plainly explain why marriage need be confined only to opposite-sex couples. That appears to be the question the courts are addressing, rather than whether same-sex marriage is permissible or not. Courts don’t seem to think that the burden is on same-sex couples to make a pitch for why they should be able to marry but rather, the state must explain why it wants to prohibit same-sex marriage, and what state interest is at stake.
After the Prop 8 trial, there remains a lack of understanding what the state’s interest is in permitting some, but not other, couples to marry. Would you care to offer any thoughts as to why the state would grant marriage licenses to some couples, but not to others?
I've not argued whether or not the relationship type you have in mind may be permitted. I've asked SSMers far and wide to plainly say what are the essentials of that type of relationship. That is how it can be distinguished from other stuff.
Based on that, then, you might propose eligiblity and ineligiblity. In other words, why government may "licenses to some but not to others".
Do you agree that society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage? If so, then, you should have thought this through better than you have thusfar demonstrated.
The core meaning of marriage has been explained. The same has not been done of SSM. Hence your burden cannot be shifted to marriage defenders.
By the way, the Judge Walker trial is not a legislative hearing in which your social policy arguments carry greater weight than the law and the constitution. That you pretend otherwise again illustrates the magical powers you invest in things you do not understand.
Emma,
Try a different approach: what is the societal significance of the number two in your view of marriage and SSM?
Is it completely arbitrary or can you justify it?
Society can certainly distinguish and encourage marriage. Just like it can distinguish and encourage voting. But like voting, it can’t determine that some may marry and others may not, without a rational state interest. We’re talking civil marriage, not religious or social marriage, just in case that’s not clear.
I still don’t know what the core meaning of marriage is, and how that justifies discriminating against same-sex couples, legally. And I’m not sure what “core meaning” is in a legal sense. I understand the rhetorical proclamation, “marriage is between a man and a woman,” but that has limited use in a court. It’s just a personal opinion. It doesn’t carry much weight, in other words.
Judge Walker’s trial is to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8. That’s what courts do: determine whether a law is constitutional or not. In this case, the judge will determine if same-sex couples are being treated equally with opposite-sex couples, if opposite-sex couples stand to lose something if same-sex couples can marry, and if the state has a rational interest in granting the benefits of marriage to the children of opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples, among other issues.
"What, in your view, would make gametes ‘3rd party’ given your earlier exchange with Marty regarding procreation and the internet?" - Chairm
One example, widely available reproductive centers, where 3rd parties can make donations. Or the use of another 3rd Party gamete for use in the process of fertilization, when one party may be infertile.
And yet again you choose to flog a strawman, since I have been discussing the the social institution that the marriage law recognizes. I have not said a word about religion.
Bad habit, that, Kevin. But you remind us all that you are in favor of separating the social institution from the law that recognizes it. That is just another example of how the purpose of the SSM campaign is to make marriage mean less and less -- because the SSM idea means so little.
* * *
The question you chose to not to address is:
Do you agree that society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage?
The blank is still there for you to fill-in. If you choose to do so, then, you need to say what are the essentials of the type of relationship you'd have society call, "marriage". Those essentials must be found in the law, as per your own rhetoric, and it is this that provides the core meaning.
This is basic stuff that most kids who watch Sesame Street tv would grasp. Sing along now, "One of these things is not like the others ..."
* * *
The federal question is a question of law and federal precedent has already rejected the SSM merger demand.
You are still framing the issue before the court as a social policy question which is not the domain of the judiciary. You're not doing a good job of discussing that you'd depend on the abuse of judicial review.
Heh.
Society distinguishes voting from other stuff. It distinguishes marriage from other stuff.
SSM? Not so much.
But you now have made an implicit promise. You said that "Society can certainly distinguish and encourage marriage."
Your promise is that you will explain your view of what distinguishes the type of relationship you would have society call "marriage" -- before you pin a license and special status on it.
Also, the second part of your promise is that you will justify encouraging that type of relationship -- through the license and special status -- as more worthy than all the other types of relationships.
By your own stated standards, you cannot resort to the social institution's societal significance for you have rejected that. You cannot resort to religious nor quasi-religious assertions of faith. You cannot depend on tradition. You cannot depend on stuff that is not compulsory. You cannot depend on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. You must justify why some types of relationships are granted license and special status while others are not.
This is what I have been asking of you and SSMers far and wide, most recently in the context of the phrase "same-sex couple".
Now, I expect you will do as you have always done: run away from the challenge your own argumentation presents to the SSM idea; and flee your own implicit promise you've made while attacking the core meaning of marriage.
Emma might want to reconsider leaving to you the job of explaining the meaning of "same-sex couple".
Chairm, you say "Your comments show that you want government to render marriage as meaningless as the SSM idea."
You've managed to invert the entire argument, you silly man. (I assume you are a man, though I have no concrete reason to other than your excessive verbosity).
We marriage-equality types firmly believe that same-sex marriage is very meaningful, and thus we OBVIOUSLY believe that marriage is meaningful. It is your disdain for gay men and lesbians that causes you to turn this into a negative.
Jeri,
So your answer is that counting to two is not going far enough. It is necessary to count to at least 3 and maybe further.
When asked what would make gametes "3rd party" you said: "widely available reproductive centers, where 3rd parties can make donations".
Are you counting the reproductive center and the donor? That's 2 parties. But that's not enough to make babies. Who is the 3rd party in this chain of transactions?
You also said: "one party may be infertile".
It takes two persons of the opposite sexes to form one infertile couple.
No one-sexed arrangement is infertile since the lack of the other sex is not infertility. Such an arrangement is nonfertile. It could be fertile with the other sex. But it is nonfertile alone. That's not a malady. The lack of the other sex is a feature, not a bug, according to those who emphasize the phrase 'same-sex couple'.
* * *
The one-sex scenario includes the lone individual, a twosome, a moresome, or a parade of thousands of persons of the same sex. But none of those arrangements is an infertile party. Each is a nonfertile party. They know it. Hence the felt necessity of these transactions.
The one-sex scenario lacks the other sex. So for a gamete to be '3rd party', the donor passes to the reproductive center who passes to the lone individual. And the individual goes outside of the one-sex scenario -- no matter what form that scenario might take.
* * *
So, in that way, the gametes are '3rd party' due to the transaction by which a lone individual may arrive at the starting line and be potentially fertile with the other sex.
These transactons are not about making a nonfertile couple fertile; this is about adding the other sex to form a fertile couple (i.e. the consumer of the reproductive center's services and the "donor" of the other sex). A procrerative duo is necessary to make babies. No one-sexed scenario includes such a twosome. Not without going outside of the same-sex arrangement.
But that probably is not what you'd mean by "same-sex couple" since the use of 3rd party gametes requires both sexes and cannot occur with the exclusion of the other sex. I say it is not what you probably meant, because such transactions require counting the donor, the center, the individual consumer -- that's 3 parties.
If you want to count a 4th person, someone in addition to the individual consumer, then, you'd count twice as high as two.
If you want to count an infertile couple, then, that's one party in addition to the donor and the center and you'd count to three.
Of course, only a fraction of 1% of married couples partake of 3rd party procreation with these transactions between donor and centers.
And your intervening comments remind that 100% of one-sexed scenarios -- oneseomes, twosomes, threesomes, moresomes -- require two sexes and three or more parties.
* * *
Emma, you might want to consider simply putting into your own words what you mean by 'same-sex couple' such that the phrase is more meaningful than 'any couple'.
Emma, you can assert it but you have failed to show it.
You said: "We marriage-equality types firmly believe that same-sex marriage is very meaningful, and thus we OBVIOUSLY believe that marriage is meaningful."
What is the core meaning of marriage, in your pro-SSM viewpoint?
I ask because you have yet to answer in such a way as to show that the type of relationship you have in mind is different from nonmarriage -- before you pin the label, license, and status to it.
We've done that for marriage. You rejected the core meaning of marriage. So what is your preferred replacement meaning? Let's test it with your own rules of argumentation which you have used to reject the core meaning of marriage.
I ask because your intended meaning is not self-evident. Nor is it "OBVIOUSLY" explained in your own comments. If anything you've reduced, not enlarged, the meaning of your own words. And you've fled from justifying what you demand.
* * *
Your namecalling is not an argument. It is rather a meaningless diversion on your part. That's an actual negative, Emma.
* * *
Earlier I explicitly said that there might be some justification for what you have in mind; and so I asked for that justification. Unlike you, I have not relied on mindreading powers.
I don't disdain people. On the contrary, I've respectfully asked you -- and other SSMers gay or not -- to explain a phrase in which you have invested everything.
Your argument, such as it is, depends on the concept of "same-sex couple", and yet you haven't given it much meaning here.
Complaining that someone is thorough is a pretty lame complaint, Emma. I've learned that SSMers like to play fast and fancy with words and with concise explanations. You'll just have to put up with thoroughness and a standard by which your assumptions are challenged.
re: 3rd parties, I did not include the reproduction center as a 3rd party. In the case of a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, my 3rd party is the gamete donor. Some couples need 3rd party donor in order to conceive. It is however, interesting to note:
Gamete is not a parent, mom or dad.
Sperm is not a parent, mom or dad.
Egg is not a parent, mom or dad.
A parent, mom or dad, can be homosexual or heterosexual. They can be of the same or opposite sex variety.
Is this a constant for heterosexual couples?
You might get different answers depending upon the couple.
"What is the core meaning of marriage, in your pro-SSM viewpoint?"
What is constant though, is that Marriage means and is the same thing to homosexual couples.
But you know there is no such thing as SSM or OSM marriage. Just marriage... so are we flogging a straw man?
Dexter #98, because no one is ever born with two left feet. Likewise, no one is ever born of anything but a man and a woman. It's not a "value judgement" either. It's how nature works.
Mother Nature is heterosexist. Get over it.
Marty, Marty, Marty... Please don't take my word for it, do a little research.. Gender IS NOT binary.. Your born man or woman argument is not scientifically valid. Do I need to provide references?
I don't know if that argument really cuts it jeri....
But Marti, would you amend constitutions to prohibit people from wearing two left shoes? Don't they have the right to wear two left shoes if that's what works for them?
Or is your analogy maybe a little empty?
Say why TC... your argument excludes gender variant and inter-sex individuals and what their orientation should be in order to participate in the core meaning of marriage.
Jeri,
You said: "I did not include the reproduction center as a 3rd party."
It is the enabling party in the chain of transactions. It is in the middle collecting the donor's contribution and deliverying its service to the consumer.
When asked whence comes the gametes, your answer included reproductive centers -- in particular those on the internet -- and donors -- in particular those who give their gametes to the centers. Add the consumer and that's 3 parties. Still more than two as per "couple".
You said: "In the case of a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, my 3rd party is the gamete donor."
But if the "couple" is 1st party and the "donor" is 3rd party, who is 2nd party. Your answer does not add-up.
You said: "Some couples need 3rd party donor in order to conceive."
The critical point remains: it takes two sexes to make babies. Not one sex.
In terms of making babies, the same-sex twosome is defined not by two but by one -- one sex -- and as such is constantly a nonfertile arrangement.
It could be a onesome or a threesome or a moresome. It is still defined by the one sex included. For the purpose of making babies, it is still dependant upon the one sex excluded. So going outside of the one-sexed arrangement is a necessity, always.
Include that other sex and the number two becomes germane.
* * *
Also, as noted, only a tiny portion of married couples partake of '3rd party' transactions. That's because infertility is a malady -- a disability -- in the case of opposite-sex couples. The number two, and the word 'couple', make obvious sense. And, as I pointed out, this pracitice is extramarital procreation even when married people use it.
On the other hand, and contrary to your comment, ALL, not just some, one-sexed arrangements "need 3rd party donor in order to conceive". That's 100% compared with a fraction of 1%.
So "some" means all for the one-sexed scenario and it means very rarely for married couples.
It is amusing how the common and useful meaning of words is so often discarded by those who argue for SSM.
Also, Jeri, the all-male scenario requires gametes from the other sex AND an actual person of the other sex. So even "same-sex couple" does not mean "any same-sex couple".
"But if the "couple" is 1st party and the "donor" is 3rd party, who is 2nd party. Your answer does not add-up."
In the couple scenario, party 1 + part 2 = couple
3rd party is the donor, whether it be sperm or egg.
In the case of a single party, party 2 may be the egg or sperm donor.
If your including all parties involved as a business transaction, its not just the reproductive center, the credit card, company, the bank, the ACH clearing provider.
re: "lso, as noted, only a tiny portion of married couples partake of '3rd party' transactions. That's because infertility is a malady -- a disability -- in the case of opposite-sex couples."
-Exactly, and civil marriage law does not discriminate against this minority.
Everyone may participate in marriage. You're stretching Jeri, if you think that marriage is at all undone because of some birth defects.
TC, you did not answer the question.. Your response however, is telling.. "Birth Defects?" Wow, a value judgement? Not in science my friend, a normal scientific variation or occurrence. Would you call a a person who is born with a left handed preference a birth defect?
What you are talking about Jeri, happens to a very small portion of the population, miniscule. It is abnormal. Why do you bring it up? and what does left handed preference have to do with it? What you're talking about is more akin to being born without a left hand.... and yes, that is a defect.
Telling a left handed person they have a defect? Says who (right handed people?). When does something qualify as being a defect in your view? Brown eyes vs. blue? Hair color? Height? At what point is this a defect?
--
Let me guess, an inter-sex individual applies for a marriage license, can they can marry if only 50% of their physical, biological, endocrinological, and genetic make-up match their sexual orientation? Or would you place conditions on a civil marriage license for these folks? If so, what conditions?
"Telling a left handed person they have a defect?"
Jeri, did you read the comment? I said being born without a limb is more akin to what you are talking about. It isn't relevant to the conversation. Sorry.
"What you are talking about Jeri, happens to a very small portion of the population, miniscule."
On the contrary it is very relevant. Minorities are not relevant? If they are akin to a defect in your non-scientific view, they and their families should just be ignored when it comes to marriage law?
Because they are miniscule?
What about dilution of the races by a minority? Should certain folks be excluded because of this supposed "defect?"
Jeri,
If you are going to count the "couple" as two parties, then, you reinforced what I said earlier.
The one-sexed scenario is as nonfertile in the form of a onesome, twosome, or moresome and so what you've being saying does not help explain the meaning of "same-sex couple".
There is the consumer individual, the donor individual, and the center which enables the transaction between the first two.
If you want to break the couple into two individuals, okay, but that still does not change the fact that the whole enterprise requires both sexes and begins, not with an infertile couple, but with a nonfertile scenario -- be it an individual or any number of persons of the same sex.
* * *
You said: "civil marriage law does not discriminate against this minority"
What minority -- a minority of one individual? We are back to what you mean by "same-sex couple".
Note that people are not suddenly made eligible to marry due to their use of, or intent to use, '3rd party' gametes. You are barking up the wrong tree.
* * *
TC is correct. The infertile couple's condition is a disability vis-a-vis what we've discussed. An infertile couple is an opposite-sex couple whose fertility is hindered or impaired. It might be due to a birth defect, a disease or malformation inherited, a or a handicap as a result of life-saving surgery such as for cancer. Far more common, however, is infertility in which the couple resolve their problem through behavioral changes. Maybe a fraction of 1% even use IVF/ARTs but the vast majority -- more than 93% of married couples -- do not use 'donated' gametes.
You are really trying to magnify the rarest of *apparent* exceptions among opposite-sex couples. But in so doing you are not explaining the meaning of "same-sex couple".
You've intervened here to point to how a one-sexed arrangement must always rely on including the sex it has otherwise excluded. If that is what you mean by "same-sex couple" then maybe you are trying to equate the lack of the other sex with a disability. But it is a chosen arrangement, as per SSM argumentation.
The lack of the other sex is a feature, not a glitch, in the same-sex arrangement, according SSMers.
Is it a glitch or a malady or a disability in your view, Jeri, and have those SSMers been mistaken all along?
I think you will need to stop digging the hole deeper.
* * *
Emma are you depending on Jeri to explain the meaning of "same-sex couple" in the SSM idea? Is the use of 3rd party gametes a legal requirement for those who'd show up to SSM?
Clarification: Maybe a fraction of 1% use IVF/ARTs but the vast majority -- more than 93% of the relatively few married couples who do use such means -- do not use 'donated' gametes. They don't go outside of their twosome.
Assuming that "same-sex couple" means something of great societal significance, what does that phrase mean in the SSM idea?
This is a fair question given that SSMers have invest so much in this phrase. It supposedly has meaning for society that can be spelled out clearly and without transgressing the very same rules that SSMers have used to attack the core meaning of marriage. Indeed, if it is more meaningful than that core meaning, it ought to be explanable forthwith.
Yet SSMers cannot find the words to explain and rely on some unspoken underlying assumption(s) that they fear to bring to the surface. Does that explain their hestiation? I dunno. But there's something odd about assuming a phrase can carry such weight and then leaving it empty and hollow.
Chairm, I defer the same sex couple explanation to the states that include same sex couples in their marriage law. Do they not define same sex couple correctly for civil marriage law? Law generally has to be specific in terms of why, and who they include or exclude.
--
My point below, whether its homosexual or heterosexual... they should not be excluded from marriage law, procreation options or exceptions or not.
"--a fraction of 1% even use IVF/ARTs but the vast majority -- more than 93% of married couples -- do not use 'donated' gametes."
--
If I understand correctly, a couple should be excluded from civil marriage, or ignored simply because they are minority or an exception. End of discussion so to speak..
--
I say whoa, I think there should some accommodations in civil marriage law.. If a person is born with a particular immutable characteristic, then law should accommodate or equally to the extent possible.
Emma #119, no one is prohibited from wearing two left shoes, just as no one is prohibited from shacking up with their same-sex lover and pretending to be husband and "wife-like husband".
But neither is society forced to accept that two left shoes are "equal" to a pair of shoes, or that two women playing house together are "equal" to a man and a wife.
If that's what makes you more comfortable, then fine. But please don't ask the rest of us to play along with your little charade.
Jeri #117, Sex/gender is certainly binary. That you can produce a miniscule fraction of the population that suffers from birth defects doesn't change anything -- even those people are the result of exactly one man and one woman.
Emma, are you deferring to Jeri's attempted explanation of "same-sex couple"?
* * *
Jeri, if, in turn, you'd defer to someone else, you ought to do so knowing the explanation to which you'd defer.
If you'd defer just for the sake of dodging, then, no, that deferral is insufficient explanation.
Is it not your own belief that you are trying to explain -- or someone else's which you don't really believe or don't really understand?
* * *
You said: "If I understand correctly ..."
No, you haven't understood.
You are attempting exagerate, to magnify, the rarest of *apparent* exceptions to the core meaning of marriage. It is not an actual exception. You are on a wild-goose chase.
Worse, you're comments have shown how the number two does not apply to 3rd party procreation and so your jumping-in to use 3rd party procreation as a way to explain "same-sex couple" has not helped explain the phrase 'same-sex couple'. Three is not two and three does not comprise a couple. Nor does one.
* * *
What is the accomodation you would put into the marriage law?
It comes back to an explanation of the phrase "same-sex couple"; you now hint that there is something immutable in that explanation.
Jeri, you are throwing everything including the kitchen sink. It is not helping you to explain "same-sex couple".
You said: "What about dilution of the races by a minority?"
Are you going to use the criteria of racialism to divide the one human race into subgroups? If not, then, your question is bogus. Maybe you will point to procreation as the basis for the notion of "dilution"? If yes, then, you are undermining your previous remarks about procreation.
For the sake of this discussion, can you refrain from throwing racialist bombs? Thanks.
Chairm, even after weeks of discussion, I'm still not sure what your problem is with the idea of couplehood, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. Do you really not understand what being in a couple means, or are you being intentionally obtuse? Either way is weird and unhelpful.
I don't have a problem with "couplehood", but you have been opaque about what you mean by the phrase "same-sex couple".
Explain instead of complain.
If you understand what you mean by "couple" then plainly explain your meaning.
For instance, how is the number two applicable to something that is defined by the number one -- one sex?
Is it about romance? But no legal requirement for that. Is it about love? But no legal requirement for that. Is it about holding hands? But no legal requirement for that.
You made a huge deal about legal requirements that made something compulsory. You made a huge deal about stuff that can occur outside of marriage is not exclusive to marriage. That's your argument, Emma, and you are now fleeing from it just because your SSM idea cannot stand up to meet your own standards.
That's a huge problem that your comments have revealed. You need to recalibrate. Toss out those weak arguments and find something better. Recognize the limitations of lawmaking. Start with the type of relationship you have in mind and identify its essentials -- before you start pinning labels to it.
Make your SSM idea stand on its own two feet rather than hoisting it up onto the back of marriage for a free ride. Afterall, you reject the marriage idea -- as per your attacks on it. Your comments have been self-defeating you should complain about that instead of the clarity I've asked of you.