By Maggie Gallagher
Prop 8 won yesterday. Even in California, they could find only one supreme-court justice willing to strip 7 million people of their core civil right to amend the state constitution, guaranteed by the constitution itself. Why do I feel, absurdly, that I should be grateful?
Liberals who support gay marriage may understand what their movement is willing to endorse and where it draws the line. The rest of us have to sit back and wonder:
Why stop at marriage? Many well-defined, seemingly secure words and terms can be redefined to help remake society along sexually liberal lines.
Take "religious liberty." Religious liberty is a deeply American solution to a perennial problem. It means that every individual has a right to pursue ultimate meaning without coercion from the government. Totalitarian governments repress religion because they recognize faith communities as competitors with the state's power to define - or redefine - human rights.
Read the full article on NRO>>
106 Comments
It's interesting how vocal Maggie Gallagher is on imposing her personal religious beliefs about same-sex marriage on others, yet she is silent on Jesus Christ's clear prohibition against divorce. I would like Ms. Gallagher to tell us why she is so strongly against same-sex marriage, yet must be for divorce, which is legal in all 50 states. From reading scripture, we know that Christ clearly hates divorce, pronouncing all but impossible. Yet He is silent about homosexuality. I wonder, are homosexuals just a small enough minority that their right to marry is easier to gang up against? Or do "Christians" like Ms. Gallagher just want to keep their own options open, and want to keep divorce legal?
Maggie Gallagher lives in her own little world. Maggie is no "Christian" as the Bible describes it, she is Christian in Name Only(CINO).
Summary of the article is this:
"Religious liberty should be protected at all costs, Catholic schools who have gay principals should be allowed to fire them"
Missing the most glaringly obvious, as many religions and churches(Christian included) will recognize gay marriage. The state must stop gays from getting married, why should we have religious liberty.
So, Maggie's way:" Religions should trump government, except for the gays. Then government should trump religion."
WHAT?! She misses the point entirely. She can't even make her own arguments anymore. I think she is growing tired of fighting a losing battle.
Oh, I also love the Ad for Weeds on the top right, yeah, a conservative christian socially conservative NRO, not ... really.....
We should not be suprised that the two comments posted here by "same-sex marriage" advocates, presumably two angry homosexual men, are filled with personal attacks of the article's author. This is a recurring theme in their campaign -- hurt, insult, smear anybody who disagrees with them. I am surprised they did not use their favourite "B word". Not a single rational argument -- could it be because they cannot come up with one?
I think the religious tolerance being discussed here bears a clear distinction...
On one hand, the state allows without impunity the beliefs of churches to establish for themselves a definition of marriage.
On the other hand, the state does not allow churches to establish for themselves a definition of marriage, and it forces the state definition on them.
I think we already have the former, and neutering marriage establishes the latter in the discussion by Maggie above.
For when the state feels it has to require churches to perform same-sex weddings that is enforcing its definition on the churches.
But when the state creates its own definition, and allows officiators of any religion to perform those marriages, that is the highest institutional freedom we can hope for.
Christ informed one can divorce if their is adultery within the marriage states this in the Gospel of John. Saint Peter informed husbands are to honour and love their wives and wives to respect their husbands.
Christ informed marriage is but for one man and one woman-Mark ch.10 / Saint Paul informed same sex-sex is not natural and unGodly in the 1st.chapter of Romans. Originally the separation of Church and State was intended and meant to keep the State out of the Church not the Church out of the State. For Church members pay taxes and are citizens too thus should also have a say in matters of the State.
I wish there were references so I could see where Maggie is getting her information. Also, she poses an interesting stance I've never heard before: that sexual aroientation is not chosen, but acting on sexuality is. She says that a homosexual or heterosexual person does not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual, but does choose to act on their attractions. She says that it is unconstitutional for a homosexual person to be granted protection by the law to enter a same-sex marriage:
"Sexual liberty means I have the right to do what I want, not the right to be free from the knowledge that others disagree, or from their choosing to build institutions that teach that my sexual actions are wrong and exclude those who engage in them."
The main argument of her article seems more geared to employment than marriage, so I think she'd really hit her point home if she could find an example of an institution that refused to hire a heterosexual person. Considering her recurring tantrums with Joe Solmonese of the HRC, I think she might start there.
Lastly, let me just point out that the passage from her article above seems to make a point regarding "teaching" but her examples from earlier in the article are in regards to employment. The church was hiring someone, not teaching them. Again, I think NOM will really drive these issues home if they can solidly identify the difference here. No church (that I know of) has been forced to "teach" someone who was gay or been mandated to "teach" that homosexuality is acceptable. But, as Maggie shows us, several have been forced to abide by equal opportunity laws in their hiring practices. If she and Brian continue to confuse these two, it will only hurt NOM's cause.
Did I miss something? There are numerous religions that perform same-sex marriages. It seems unconstitutional for the state to give benefits to one religion's marriage and not to other religions' marriages.
Stefanie,
Did I miss something?
Lets see if you did...
It seems unconstitutional for the state to give benefits to one religion’s marriage and not to other religions’ marriages.
You certainly did miss something. Religions do not dictate what marriage is to the state. It is not constitutional for the state to give carte blanch power to religions to define what its own secular institution is about.
The state decides what marriages it recognizes on its own, and lets each religion officiate in the ceremony. Similarly the state does not punish a religion for performing a ceremony which is not recognized by the state as marriage.
Maggie, the word "marriage" is misspelled at the end of your new NY ad.
You idiots.
Larry says:
"For Church members pay taxes and are citizens too thus should also have a say in matters of the State."
Do Christians have the right to impose their religious beliefs on non-Christians, by making things illegal? Isn't that what's going on with same-sex marriage? Why aren't Christians satisfied to follow their own beliefs. If you're a gay Christian, you can refuse to marry someone of the same sex, even if/when it's legal. That's how is should work.
Jeffery.. Jeffery.. Jeffery... I see your in need of some Bible Education: You Stated Jeffery that "From reading scripture, we know that Christ clearly hates divorce, pronouncing all but impossible. Yet He is silent about homosexuality". Jeff dude.. I'm going to go out on a limb here, & state whats obvious to everyone whos read the Bible front to cover.. that you Jeffery have skipped some of the Bible.. maybe jumped around a lot. Some reading I would suggest for you Jeffery is... 1 (I'm using English Standard Version) Corinthians 6:9 through 6:12. I believe that's very clear what Jesus thinks about Homosexuals. Then we have Romans 1: 26-27.. then Tim 1:10.. and Jude 7 discusses homosexual behavior.. then we have Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 (OUCH Dude). These are just a few.. Now lets touch what the Bible says Jesus thinks of Marriage... Check out Matthew 19: 4...
So Jeffery.. I'd suggest buddy you actually read the Bible & know what's actually in it before trying to influence people towards your twisted thinking.
Just a thought.. Pal..
Jeffrey,
Do Christians have the right to impose their religious beliefs on non-Christians, by making things illegal? Isn’t that what’s going on with same-sex marriage?
Everyone has the right to vote their conscience, but your really out on a limb here.
A same sex couple, having their relationship legally recognized along with every other committed couple, is not illegal if we affirm the equality of marriage -- the equal respect and recognition of everyone's rights that are involved in the human mating practice.
Stephanie said:
There are numerous religions that perform same-sex marriages. It seems unconstitutional for the state to give benefits to one religion’s marriage and not to other religions’ marriages.
I take that to mean that Stephanie things polygamy should be legal in the U.S. as well, because numerous religions perform them.
Interesting logic!
The most rediculous blog on this subject that I have seen in an full 43 years of living.
This is such a blatant attempt at religious persecution that I have seen in a long time. To state that anyone that enters into a Civil Union should be fired. (Because this story has been recycled over and over and the religion or the civil school has been interchanged for the catholic school).
While the author admits that his example is flawed because of the disparity of protections between governments, but yet plows ahead and tries to distract you with a scary story that your gonna lose all self determination and the gays are taking over! How inane can one person get?
The United States was founded in part to escape from religious persecution. That is exactly what this blog adds up to. That religion should determine every aspect of life for everyone. Any deviation and you are undeserving of any leagl rights or protections. That is the essence of religious perrsecution and intolerance. It is extremely ironinc that the country based on freedom from religious persecution would be the ones to praise said persecution and even deride an example of protection from religious persecution. HIGHLY ironic.
Stefanie, when you said "numerous" did you mean very few as in barely any?
We should not be suprised that the two comments posted here by “same-sex marriage” advocates, presumably two angry homosexual men, are filled with personal attacks of the article’s author. This is a recurring theme in their campaign — hurt, insult, smear anybody who disagrees with them. I am surprised they did not use their favourite “B word”. Not a single rational argument — could it be because they cannot come up with one?
How about this? Would it not be considered "honoring the tradition" of my all-white country club to effectively ban black members? Would it be "honoring the tradition" of only Christians at a workplace to ban Jewish employees? Would it be "honoring the tradition" of only white presidents to ban people of color? Would it be "honoring the tradition" of only males voting to allow women to vote? None of these are honoring tradition rather excluding a group based on prejudice. And the definition of this "B-word" you mention is the assumed superiority of one class over another.
Wonderful exposition Maggie. You would think that these simple arguments would be understood by anyone. But unless you go to church, people do not understand the risks that are being foisted upon everyone.
Certainly you would think these arguments would pass rational basis review in a court, unless you get a judge that wants to make policy. I think it's also telling that rather addressing the concerns about religious freedoms (as gay activists are concerned, the whole plan is to smash them anyway) that posters have to result to ad hominen attacks against your personal faith. The reason they do this is that they, in fact, agree with the arguments you make.
From the horses mouth, it looks like Maggie was right;
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12537.html
Thanks for the link Phil. "Gay youth workers" at church.... yeah, what could go wrong there???
You want to drive families out of churches, I cannot think of a better way to do it than to place sodomites in charge of their kids.
Phil says:
"Wonderful exposition Maggie. You would think that these simple arguments would be understood by anyone. But unless you go to church, people do not understand the risks that are being foisted upon everyone."
Phil, who's at risk if same-sex couples can marry? No one is against gay people forming loving, committed relationships. No one is against these couples raising children, their own biological children or adoptive ones. No one objects to gay couples living under the same roof, sharing their resources, looking out for each other, speaking for each other when appropriate, in short, doing everything that married couples do.
Yet for some inexplicable reason, people don't want these couples to get married. Even if only for the enhanced stability marriage gives to children. It makes absolutely no sense. We should be INSISTING that any couple, straight or gay, with children get married.
The children of same-sex couples are the ones at risk. But you're so against same-sex couples marrying that you're willing to hurt children. That is very sad.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY??? MORE LIKE RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION!!! THE RELIGIOUS ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIER BELIEFS LAW!!?? IN YOUR OWN WORDS....Religious liberty is a deeply American solution to a perennial problem. It means that EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO PERSUE ULTIMATE MEANING without coercion from the government. KEY WORDS... WITHOUT COERCION FROM OUR GOVERNMENT... YET YOU WANT TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE AND
ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS!!! HOW DOES THAT WORK??? "Totalitarian governments repress religion because they recognize faith communities as competitors with the state’s power to define - or redefine - human rights." WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CAMPAIGN IS DOING.... TRYING TO REDEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS!!! Just because you say you are on the side of righteousness, does not make you RIGHT!!! Do you even hear what your argument is??? "It's about making sure that as many children as possible have the birthright of being raised by their own mother and father who love them and love each other." Are the "gays" trying to kidnap kids from their parents? Does my gay brother getting married have ANYTHING to do with "Joe the plumbers" kid's birthright, or whether or not "mommy and daddy" love each other... will his wedding effect, in any way, whether "mom and dad" are going to be abusive, or drug dealers, or YOUR NIGHTMARE.....pagans?!!
Phil, who’s at risk if same-sex couples can marry?
Jeffrey, no one is outlawing same-sex couples. No marriage affirmation of the importance of the human mating practice on our society has any negative impact on same-sex couples.
That said, lets look again at the change in marriage that is contemplated here...
* We remove the expectation of man and woman in marriage.
* That slight change removes the importance we put in integration as a vehicle to ensuring equality.
Marriage equality is benefited by expecting integration, the same way that schools are benefited by expecting racial integration.
* That slight change removes the ability we have to equally recognize everyone's rights in the human mating practice.
* It says that any two people can raise a child as well as you can, that you as someone who co-created a child, has no special importance to that child.
You tell me will that belief inspire more or less child abandonment -- especially when marriages get difficult (which they all do).
Its a very dangerous change that you propose to do in order to facilitate the expansion of government into a business of romance regulation in total.
While I support recognition and benefits for any two people who want to designate mutual trust and benefits, it is not a good idea to neuter marriage to accomplish that.
@Jeffrey
"Yet for some inexplicable reason, people don’t want these couples to get married. "
This must be a "la la la la I can't hear you sentence!" that homosexual activists seem to have to resort to. This whole website that you are posted on is filled with "explicable reasons" as to why people believe that redefining marriage is wrong. It's just that you can't admit to agreeing with any of them (i.g. religious liberty arguments like from the link I provided)..
And, you are wrong when you say that "No one objects to gay couples living under the same roof" because you forget that there were reasons that there were sodomy laws on the books in the first place. Until the supreme court overturned *them*. And, there are reasons that organizations like Catholic charities do not adopt out children into homosexual couples (along with some states).
The problem as I see it, is that you mistake "toleration" for "approval." Which is the ultimate goal of gay activists. People "tolerate" the fact that the sodomy laws were overturned (for the right to privacy not named in the constitution). But that does not mean that anyone automatically then approves of sodomy.
On Lawn: While I support recognition and benefits for any two people who want to designate mutual trust and benefits, it is not a good idea to neuter marriage to accomplish that.
Does that mean you're for Civil Unions for same-sex couples then? Providing the same, exact benefits as married couples... only under a different name?
This is all just frustrating me so badly. There just isn't a good solution. I don't want to see marriage "neutered" as it's been put, making the male/female dynamic irrelevant to what makes a marriage what it is.
But I also don't want to see same-sex couples left without some institution to celebrate and recognize their particular commitment to one another.
And yet it seems like if the state gives same-sex couples the same exact benefits as married couples, it's saying they are the same thing... and we're back to marriage being neutered again, aren't we?
I'm beginning to think this is all hopelessly circular...
Marie, I think you are perfectly within your rights to think of marriage as only something that can happen between a man and a woman. Nobody can tell you what's real. But from a legal standpoint, there is simply no good reason, especially when there are children involved, to prevent a same-sex couple from having the same rights and obligations the state grants with a marriage license that opposite-sex couples. It's funny, no one has any intention of making divorce illegal. Yet divorce is far more threatening to the institution of marriage and SSM is.
Phil, I can't agree with arguments that make no sense. I'm too smart and educated to fall for the airy fairy "it's just wrong!" kind of argument. Give me a solid reason why it is a problem for same-sex couples to marry. Tell me why it's wrong for their children to have the security of knowing their parents are married, like all the other kids' parents. Tell me why marriage is important for the children of heterosexual parents, but somehow unimportant for the children of homosexual parents. Your arguments aren't against SSM, they're against same-sex parenting. But no one appears to be arguing against the legal right of a homosexual to have and raise a child. The issue is marriage.
"I can’t agree with arguments that make no sense. I’m too smart and educated to fall for the airy fairy “it’s just wrong!” kind of argument. Give me a solid reason why it is a problem for same-sex couples to marry."
What, other than the countless arguments already made in these threads that you are too smart and educated to agree with?
Let me put it to you bluntly. I don't want to be forced into providing services for you gay "wedding." I don't want my friend to be forced to hire a gay for the Christian bookstore he runs. I don't want there to be polygamous weddings that are sure to follow (where would the government draw the line after gay marriages?). I in fact know polygamists (FLDS in Texas) and I *do not* want to see that encouraged by government in anyway. It's horrible for the children and I have seen it *first* hand.
Marriage between a man and women, by definition is discrimination, for the sake of protecting society and children.
Phil, I understand that you don't like homosexuality. That's fine. But is that enough of a reason to deny someone a fundamental right like marrying the person he or she wants to marry? If you don't like the idea of a black man marrying a white woman, is it enough to make that marital arrangement illegal? We're talking about an adult lifetime commitment that I for one would not give up without a fight. If I couldn't marry the woman I want to marry, assuming she wants me too, for whatever reason, I would be pretty angry.
Don't hide behind religion on this. Christians have been plenty accommodating on other Christian "don'ts". I don't hear about any Christian businesses worrying about having to hire divorced people, or people who commit adultery, or who don't honor the Sabbath. Slavery had Christianity's full stamp of approval and when it was outlawed, Christians went along willingly. Christianity is very flexible in accommodating social needs.
Jason Nelson, the man-woman basis of marriage is not a tradition. It is a universal of the social institution across time, geography, cultural, and religoius boundaries. You are confusing the protocols or regulations of marriage with the core around which those things -- variable features and traditions -- have evolved.
Jeffrey, children residing in same-sex households (a category the census uses for households headed by homosexual twosomes) are mostly (by far) from the previously procreative relationships of one or the other parent.
That is, most of these children have both mom and dad, it is just that one or the other is nnresident. And most of these children have the same protections of other children of divorced or estranged parents. Indeed, the marital presumption of paternity protects the parental status of both mom and dad -- as wella s protecting their children.
The unwed presumption of paternity is also based on the opposite-sex nature of human procreation and covers the children of nonmarital relationships.
So most of these children are not unprotected. How else are children attained by same-sex households?
Adoption and use of IVF (3rd party procreation) accounts for about 10% of the tiny population of children residing in same-sex households.
Both adoption and 3rd party procreation come with at least two prerequisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to assign a substitute adult.
Neither adoption nor 3rd party procreation is based on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually.
But these are the means by which the child-parent legal relationship is directly established. Not SSM.
And how am I hiding behind religion? I don't want to see polygamy (which *will* follow) become an acceptable form of "marriage." I don't want my Christian bookstore friend be forced to hire a homosexual. I don't want children taught that same sex marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage.
All these issues you are unable to address directly. Call them the "explicable" reasons.
Does that mean you’re for Civil Unions for same-sex couples then? Providing the same, exact benefits as married couples… only under a different name?
What I am for is what has been tried and tested in Hawaii. Many forget that Hawaii was the first state to try to neuter marriage. Many don't realize that it is probably the most mature in this whole discussion also.
Civil Unions, to me, fall short for two reasons. The first is that they are too exclusive. There are many possible family arrangements, and I don't see the justification for its exclusivity for homosexuals (which are really a small subset of same-sex couples with children).
The second reason is as you mention, if it is tied directly to marriage then there is no room to target it exclusively with its own needs. Not all benefits of marriage make sense in that arrangement. What do two lesbians need with presumed paternity, Or two gays for that matter?
I agree that all the same benefits that actually are relevant to their situation should be granted and recognized. But that should be for what it is, the committed trusting relationship where people want recognition of their mutual trust in each other.
Marriage has a different purpose, to recognize mutual trust, that is true. But to recognize the importance that the parents have to the children, to encourage the equal recognition of rights of everyone involved in each conception. Since we are all conceived that does include all of us.
POLYGAMY IS CONDONED IN THE BIBLE. YOUR RELIGION TEXT ACCEPTS POLYGAMY.
"But to recognize the importance that the parents have to the children, to encourage the equal recognition of rights of everyone involved in each conception. Since we are all conceived that does include all of us."
Really there are same sex couples who have children. Why would they not love their child as much as a heterosexual couple. The government has no right to involve itself in a couple's contraception.
"POLYGAMY IS CONDONED IN THE BIBLE."
So is the stoning of homosexuals outright. Just because something can be done does not make it a good idea.
To Jason--
you said-
We should not be suprised that the two comments posted here by “same-sex marriage” advocates, presumably two angry homosexual men, are filled with personal attacks of the article’s author. This is a recurring theme in their campaign — hurt, insult, smear anybody who disagrees with them. I am surprised they did not use their favourite “B word”. Not a single rational argument — could it be because they cannot come up with one?
My response is this:
1) I did not name call nor smear the author, just stated the truth that the author alreday admitted. The two countries do not have the same governmental protections or freedoms. That is far and away from a "hate-filled homosexual".
2) I made a rational arguement concerning the rejection of religious intolerance and persecution. Just because you cannot accept an arguement doesn't mean that the arguement has not been made.
3) I have given plenty of reasons for homosexual marriage but on another blog-- (see the comments on the blog titled " the institution formerly called marriage". Summing it all up the arguements are simple and quite rational.
a) No scientific evidence shows that children are worse off in a homosexual household versus children in a heterosexual household--- NONE
b) That denying a basic human right- that of having a recognized and protected relationship is withheld from a segement of Society. That is the definition of discrimination.
c) That denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is a violation of the Constitution and my pursuit of happiness.
d) That punishing unwanted children by refusing them a stable home and a loving environment simply because you have some subjective view (subjective because its isn't based in factual reality but because it is a moral judgement on your part and morals do change and are not stable things), that homosexuality is wrong.
e) That every single arguement against homosexual marriage is based on half-truth, flights of fancy (invented opposition), and fear-mongering.
f) That homosexuals are humans before they are homosexuals and are therefore due basic human rights.
g) That homosexuals at present are paying their fair tax burden without the benefits that those taxes provide.
h) That heterosexuals are desiring a return to an era of Jim Crow laws where supposedly equal people do not enjoy equal treatment under the law.
So when you talk of and angry homosexual--- that IS me but I do not take that anger out on you. I have not disparaged you in any way, shape, or form. Neither did I insult or smear the Author. Just pointing out the glaring fact that the intent of the article re-enforces religious intolerance and persecution which is exactly counter to the founding ideals of America.
respectfully
Brian.
PS. I don't roll over to be beaten up by you or yours. Been there and done that. I will not allow you to mis-represent me nor my comments. If you treat me with respect you get respect, if you treat me with disdain and lies, then that is the only thing you deserve.
To Phil-
you-
And how am I hiding behind religion? I don’t want to see polygamy (which *will* follow) become an acceptable form of “marriage.” I don’t want my Christian bookstore friend be forced to hire a homosexual. I don’t want children taught that same sex marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage
Me-
You are hiding behind religion because ALL of your arguements are based in religion.
1) As for polygamy- I don't like it either but polygamy has and will always exist in some fashion within human society. In fact it is even encouraged in the bible.
2) As to hiring-- no-one is forcing you to hire anyone. That is and will always remain your choice. Besides no self-respecting homosexual would try to get a job at a christian bookstore simply because of all the personal hassle they would encounter. BUT no-one is forcing you to do it.
3) You don't want to teach your children that homosexuals can and do get married. Fine but the rest of that unsaid sentence is that you would rather not deal with homosexuality at all. You would rather teach your child that beating a gay person to death is much more acceptable as a behavior than loving someone reagrdless of their sexual orientation.
Again no-one is forcing behavior on you.... it is you who are forcing behavior on the homosexual..... and have been doing so for centuries! So when it comes to dictating activity, heterosexuals are FAR more guilty of that particular crime.
Brian, to add to you third point about teaching children about homosexuality, there are numerous things that are taught to children that any parent may not agree with but unfortunately the American public school system cannot accommodate every child with respect to their parents' wishes.
Many children will even learn about homosexuality from other children. You can't shield children from the world.
Homeschooling is the best option for parents who want to allow maintain their child's ignorance of inevitable, real-world things like homosexuality.
"Jason Nelson, the man-woman basis of marriage is not a tradition. It is a universal of the social institution across time, geography, cultural, and religoius boundaries. You are confusing the protocols or regulations of marriage with the core around which those things — variable features and traditions — have evolved."
Hey Chairm, that's very wrong. Several countries allow gender neutral/same-sex marriage. If you're simply basing this opinion on the way things always have been take a look at my examples and see that everything I mentioned was always that way until it progressed as all social issues do. All I can say at this point is that marriage equality will progress and become accepted nationwide at which point you will be standing on the wrong side of history. Relegated to history books like those who opposed women voting, integration of schools, and gay and lesbian teachers. I appreciate your tenacity but your work will be in vain.
@Brian
"I don’t like it either but polygamy has and will always exist in some fashion within human society."
So then it really does have something in common with homosexuality?
"In fact it is even encouraged in the bible."
Hardly. More like tolerated, and rife with problems to the extant that the apostle Paul listed one of the requirements of church leadership to between one man and one woman.
"no-one is forcing you to hire anyone. That is and will always remain your choice. Besides no self-respecting homosexual would try to get a job at a christian bookstore simply because of all the personal hassle they would encounter"
You mean that if my friend needs help in his store, he has the choice of either hiring the gay or hiring now one at all? Sneaky phrasing there. Just admit it outright.
And while the first two gays would not sue, the third one will. I think that is pretty clear to many, the gay activist's propensity for legal action.
http://community2.myfoxdc.com/_Lesbians-look-to-boot-Boy-Scouts-from-own-facilities/blog/271144/70048.html?b=
For an instance, some lesbians are offended by the Boy Scouts leasing property from the city, so they sued.
"You don’t want to teach your children that homosexuals can and do get married. Fine but the rest of that unsaid sentence. "
No, the Amazing Kreskin you are not. What I said is that I do not want my children taught that homosexual unions are the same as traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
"You would rather teach your child that beating a gay person to death is much more acceptable as a behavior than loving someone reagrdless of their sexual orientation."
Thankfully we are a nation of laws, because you would have the rainbow cops at my door to arrest me for nonconforming bigoted thoughts, even though that's not what I was thingking. And the extreme choice between beating and loving is nice. Rather, I would teach my children why they do not want to grow up to be involved in the homosexual lifestyle. Oh yeah, there is no "gay gene."
"Again no-one is forcing behavior on you…. it is you who are forcing behavior on the homosexual….. and have been doing so for centuries"
That's the thing with homosexuals - up is down, black is white, right is left. By redefining traditional marriage, you are the one forcing acceptance of your lifestyle on everyone, including those in churches.
Traditional marriage over the centuries did not happen in a vacuum for the sole purpose of oppressing gays. Rather, it's because it was accepted fact that this was the best way to bring forth future generations. After all, creatures of the same sex are unable to bear children on their own. Yup, that sounds like a crime to me!
What about Equal Protection, where everyone is entitled to "equal application of the law" or entitled to seek civil marriage, not restricted to separate and unequal less than classifications. Are the preservation of tradition and the
expression of moral disapproval legitimate governmental interests? Even though the majority of folks view a particular practice as immoral may not be a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Does Prop. H8 constitutes the type of “arbitrary and invidious discrimination” prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause? See: Loving vs. Virginia 388 U.S. at 10.
Jason Nelson said: "Several countries allow gender neutral/same-sex marriage."
None of those places have a legal requirement that makes "love" mandatory. But SSMers depend on the relatively recent tradition of romance.
There is no legal requirement that makes mandatory same-sex sexual attraction or same sex sexual behavior. There is no homosexual requirement when people show up and ask for a license for an all-male or an all-female relationship.
So SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, in those places.
This pretty much destroys your complaint about sexual orientation. Indeed, marriage law has no such criteria -- not for eligilibity and not for ineligibility.
So SSM is based on tradition and based on an arbtrary use of government power.
Two things that SSMers have been denouncing over and over and over.
Yes, Jason Nelson, identity politics can take hold in open and very free societies. But asserting supremacy via identity politics is one of the most reliable sources of injustice, hatred, bigotry, and even violence.
That's the core of SSM -- gay identity politics asserted as the trump card played against all dissent and all opposition.
But it will inevitably destroy itself. Perhaps not before causing massive damage socially, culturally, legally, and in other very profound ways. Often even the members of the identity group will be treated as subjects rather than as citizens.
No "gay marriage" has existed in all of human history. None that survived to be recorded as intrinsic to the social institution of marriage. That should be a cautionary flag.
By the way, Jason Nelson, what you said to me was said to me by Communists. They were proven wrong, as will you.
To Phil-
You continue to take my words and twist them into what you want them to say. I didn't say the choice of hiring was between a homosexual or no person at all. I said whom evr you choose that's fine and its also alright if you DO only have one candidate, that happens to be a gay man or woman, to not hire that person.
The reason Homosexual discrimination is so hard to proove, (yes there are some cases where justice prevails but the majority of hoomosexuals discrimination are dismissed), is beacuse discrimination period is very hard to proove hetero or homosexual. if there isn't a voice recording, some paper trail, or a video, it all boils down to hearsay.
I also said that homosexuals for the most part would not apply to a christian bookstore and as a gay man, I personally would be suspicious of the motivation of a homosexual that would.
You also mis-represented me when you were trying to interpret what I said about teaching your children, In many places. the first problem with this section is that you reply that you don't want same sexunions to have equal footing with heterosexual marriage. Why? The religious answer here is because homosexuality isn't about love but is only lust. How do I know? because MY father was a fundamentalist preacher and for 18 years of my life I was immersed in it.You even proove my point by later saying that you believe homosexuality to be a chioce, ("there is no gay-gene). Again you ignore sscience to your own detriment. Science certainly supports the idae of genetics providing the predisposition (twin studies),Pre-natal hormones determine the masculinity or femininity levels of the resultant child, and the brain and emotions become pretty much hardwired in the time of life before language and therefore memory.
Homosexuality, for a number of reasons is as much a part of a person as skin color or physical sex (male/female). You can judge me as a sinner but the simple fact is that spiritual judgement is for God alone and by spiritually condemning any one you condemn yourself. Matt 5-7..
Back the subject. I brought up the fact of gay-bashing. The point of that is that you do not teach yopur children respect for other humans, you are teaching judgement of others which is completely at odds with the words of Jesus who was God himself. A much more reliable source that Paul could ever hope to be. I don't truly believe that you personally hold the belief in beating gays, I don't know you that well. BUT there ar eplenty of people willing to actually believe that the commandment of Leviticus should be carried out as God intended and laws can go to hell. I have personally been the victim of gay bashing with a 2 X 4 to the face. Been there and done that and I know first hand of which I speak which is more than you can say.
Lastly if cannot see what is plain in front of you then you are beyond human help. To not realize that your idea of morality having held sway now for about 500 years, ha snot changed towards homosexuals. If you weren't shoving your life down my throat, I would already enjoy the same freedoms and respect that you take for granted. If you weren't shoving your sexuality on me then commercials would not be based almost entirely on the heterosexual. I wouldn't have to see you slobber all over each other out in public, I would have to watch you holding hands or laughing at a private joke. I wouldn't always and everywhere (books, tv, radio, billboards, movies, vacation brochures, posters, toys) be surrounded with everything heterosexual. If the reverse were true and I was IMPOSING on you, then all the advertising would be about same sex sex. You wouldn't be allowed to walk down the street holding hands for fear of being targeted for violence, you wouldn't be allowed to publicly announce your love for your wife, you wouldn't be allowed to in any way treat your wife as anything special. Just another friend among the countless friends. just a basic aquaintance... no-body special in any way. The plain and un-argueable truth is that homosexuals are the ones who have and are facing discrimination and are denied basic human decency. Evben denied that we are worth anything at all and these are the value you want to instill in your children. That those who are lesser are not as good as, and can be treated anyway you see fit. They don't matter and their lives don't matter. You scoff but that is EXACTLY what you are teaching your childre by teaching them that homosexuals are not as good as heterosexuals regardless of the given situation or relationship.
I also realize that marriage, as you point out, developed and that means that it grew in meaning. That requires that the meaning change over time. That means that the application of the term marriage is not a steady and secure and single definition idea. That means that you are in essence not the holders and arbitors of who can and cannot get married. Nor are you the holder's of any special reason for marriage. At first its about inheritance and political alliances, wealth and property. Women and children are commodities to be sold or traded. That is the original and biblical start of marriage. Later around Henry 8th and the breaking of the hold of the Catholic church over every facet of humanity, it became more about love and attraction but still primarily about heirs (commoditiy), and about property and political alliance. Even today marriage remains to be about property and inheritance. Children are present and we are doing a better job overall of not viewing children as commodities. But arranged marriages still happen and dowries still happen. Women and children are still viewed as property and commodities by much of the world that remains in the undeveloped nations. Those are facts and they are not insulting nor personal. I have not once attacked you and yet your post is full of Bile. and anger at a person you don't know, will probably never meet. Do us both a favor and pull down on the aggressiveness. I will discuss with you and even debate with you but I respect your right to an opinion and the least you could do in return is give me the same consideration. It is what Jesus commands you do after all.
Brian there are universal features of the social institution throughout the anthropolocal and historical records.
You might emphasize the variable features but that's quite different.
A basic requirement for establishing a relationship status, at law, is to plainly state its core meaning.
You need to say what it is. Then, you can draw boundaries around it -- to say what it is not.
Marriage has at least two legal requirements that are definitive of the core: 1) the man-woman criterion which stands for sex integration; 2) the marital presumption of paternity which stands for the provision of responsible procreation.
This describes the type of relationship that marriage is -- both culturally and at law.
Boundaries are drawn -- in all cultures -- against some related people (but not all related people), against some previously married people (but not all previously married people), against some underaged people (but not all underaged people), and -- obviously -- against some consenting adults (but not all consenting adults).
These boundaries have varied and are sometimes drawn in shades of grey. But they all arise from the core meaning of the social institution that is shown preference in our customs, traditions, and laws.
Now, since there is no precedent for SSM in human history, we rely on the most recent impositions of SSM -- like in the last five minutes or so.
Can you point to the definitive legal requirements that illustrate the core meaning of SSM? And can you use that core to justify the sustainability of the boundaries?
I doubt you can distinguish SSM from other nonmarital arrangements -- sexualized or not. But give it a go.
"Marriage has at least two legal requirements that are definitive of the core: 1) the man-woman criterion which stands for sex integration; 2) the marital presumption of paternity which stands for the provision of responsible procreation."
"Voting" used to have the legal requirement of being an adult male and a landowner. Social circumstances changed that definition, didn't they? Likewise, marriage used to have the legal requirement of "same race." Social circumstances changed that definition (an example of the many times the definition of marriage has changed).
Why is there so much struggle to come to terms with a legal definition of marriage being between two consenting adults?
To Chairm-
Thanks for the reply. I am off to work right now but your questionof what the core of SSM is. It is a valid question and one which I shall respond to but It will have to wait until this afternoon or the evening at the latest.
Respectfully
Brian
PS. Thank you for not being aggressivly antagonistic. More is accomplished throughdiscussion than posturing-- FOR BOTH SIDES
Totally off topic, but I just noticed that the NOM office is like 20 mins away from me, lol. Small world! We should do lunch!
Jeffrey: Why is there so much struggle to come to terms with a legal definition of marriage being between two consenting adults?
Two things that I'm reading:
1) It's mostly semantics, but stripping away the significance of the male/female dynamic seriously bothers many of the people who felt that dynamic was the *point* of marriage. They feel that their unique struggle (male/female dynamic, often with childbearing in mind) deserves to be recognized and rewarded for what it is, and that SSM unfairly dismisses all that as being irrelevant now
2) As you've seen, many people consider homosexuality to be immoral and want to stay distanced from it.. They feel that having the government recognize SSM will legitimize homosexuality, and as a by-product will force them to hire gays, provide goods and services to gay weddings, etc. I'm not saying that's right, just that this is what I'm hearing here. That's what they mean by SSM "taking away religious freedom." I don't agree with that definition, but again... that's my understanding of what they're saying
Marie, I see what you're saying but looking at your point #1, it's like saying that men and women wouldn't come together if they didn't have the government sanction of marriage. I don't think that's the case. Marriage recognizes and solidifies a relationship; it doesn't cause it to be created in the first place. Your observation suggests that if SSM is legal, people will be confused about whether to marry a man or a woman. I highly doubt that will be the case.
On point #2, it's important to distinguish between homosexuality, and rights of homosexual people, with SSM, which is merely the legal recognition of SS couples. Issues of hiring homosexuals has nothing to do with SSM. I believe that people shouldn't impose their religious views on others anyway. Hold yourself accountable to your religious beliefs: if you're a gay Christian, avoid marrying someone of the same sex, and avoid having sex with someone of the same sex, if your Bible interpretation leads you to that belief.
To Chairm.
It seems that you were saying in your post that unless homosexuals can define what they view as "marriage" and what they hope to acheive. You state that a legal requirement for marriage is that both participants be opposite sexes BUT that has never been a legal requirement until the last 8 years came to pass. There is nolegal requirements for marriage that existed before that to require that the only marriage can be a man/woman marriage. Also you refered to anthr0opology and to historical records. You actually proove my point that marriage has never been about love either in anthrolpology nor in any hisorical records. What you do have is a pure financial and political reason for marriage. You also have NUMEROUS historical, archeological, and anthropological references to Same Sex unions reaching from the greek/roman era, Celtic societies (that also includes most of the germanic peoples), to the native Americanm Indian traditions. We have records that show many long-term homosexual relationships that are treated as being equal,(and at times), better than the "traditional male/female relationships. There is more than enough precedent FOR homosexual unions and/or marriages. To ignorantly ignore (not you but it happens), the reality of the hisotory surrounding same sex unions and their importance in a society.
Given all of that I will give you the description of marriage as I see it. Presently heterosexual marriage may or may not concern the issue of proicreation. It is not a requirement for marriage and marriage is not denied because someone cannot or does not wish to procreate. Therefore children and the possibility of children have absolutly nothing to do with marriage at all. That also takes care of your paternity issue. What remains throughout history and also today is that marriage, while having grown to include issues of love and commitment, is still basically a financial relationship. There is much about companionship and stuff but neither hetero nor homosexual companionships of any length of time, make companionship a true cause for marriage. Helpful but again not required. That leaves the financial arena. This has been the reason for marriage consistantly throughout history and continues to be the reasons behind marriage. For heterosexuals this aspect of marriage is taken for granted and is not really thought about nor is it studied. For homosexuals this is at present, out of reach. There are civil Unions but these documents are
1) Not equal in financial and property rights to marriage
2) are not portable as marriage is and is therefore inadquate as a protection of a couple's desire to merge their finances
3)Are not legally binding. The fact that the majority of challenged Civil Unions are overturned by the heterosexual family of one or the other or even both partners, even though that same family has disowned or mistreated these homosexual partners doesn't enter into consideration. WHY? because homosexuals are still viewed as being worth less or less deserving. That we can still view Americans as being divided into who deserves what benefits is amazing and hard for people toaccept. They cannot understand that this is an issue of Consitutional rights. That I as a gay man have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness as any heterosexual. That homosexuals have been discriminated and persecuted for centuries now, (specifically from the time that Catholisism ruled the western world until the present day).
So what does a homosexual marriage entail?
1)Children? possibly but not a requirement for marriage since it is also not a requirement for heterosexual marriage.
2)Financial union? definitly.
3)Inheritance and property rights? Definitly
4)Sexual relationship? probably but again not a requirement as it is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. (You might assume that it is a requirement but it truly is not a requirement)
5)Love and companionship? Definitly but again this is more along the lines of a close spousal relationship which is a far sight more involved than just friends or even close friends. That one person that you want to grow old with, that one person that you want to be there to take care of you (or you take care of them) at times when you cannot provide for youreself.
6) having someone specific that you can always count on. Not that you can't rely on others but there is a world of difference between a confidant and a soul-mate type of relationship.
So there you have it. The core of ANY marriage has been and continues to be financial in its base. The rest is, as you say, amorphous and changeable. That is hisoricaland factual and is 100% supported by every scientific study.
Gay "marriage has been around for as long as man has been around. As for historical impacts of homosexuality upon history to any significant degree you only need to go back to philosophy and realize that our own "modern" civilization has its roots in the bedrooms of homosexual and bisexual men. Plato,Aristotle, Alexander the greek, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, and it is even suspected that we have already had our first homosexual President in the Untied States. Early on in the 20th Century, I believe it was Buchannan that never married and shared a home with another unmarried bachelor. They lived together for years bofore and after the elections. Their relationship was much more than just a couple of roommates. The arguement that there are no records of homosexual unions that are equal in length and importance to society to any heteroseual marriage.
Now you use a lot of terminology that I would rather you just put into plain vernacular English but I am not huge on stats and statistics and I am far from a brilliant person that can rattle facts and figures at the drop of a hat, BUT I do know that my lay- understanding and representation of the above facts are indeed factual.
To Charim-
I do want my relationship recognized on the basis of my love for my partner but ther core of the marriage issue is financial. One does not preclude the other. Just because my drive for equality is due to the lack of financial benefits and protections but that doesn't mean that I don't also and foremost LOVE my husband. I can Love my husband all day long. There is nothing to stop me from that. There is also nothing stopping me from living together and sharting the emotional support of a marriage relationship. IT does preclude me from actually enjoying the benefits (financial) that married people often take for granted.
Jeffery said: marriage used to have the legal requirement of “same race.”
Did it?
Nope. The anti-miscegenation system penalized some marriages that did not conform to the racist filter. Such a filter has never been a universal feature of the social institution. It is a variable feature.
Racists have used marriage for nonmarriage purposes to the extent that they've undermined sex-integration and responsible procreation. The racist filter was/is anti-marriage. It was/is a direct affront to the core meaning of marriage.
It was/is based on a caste system that had no rational basis itself. There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Even the criteria used in the racist systems were superficial and variable.
But it recognized and distorted the centrality of procreation in marriage. This is what makes marriage a sexual and a public type of relationship.
The anti-miscegenation system in America looked backward -- to ancestory -- and forward -- to progeny. By asserting the supremacy of identity politics, the racist system in the law and the culture pressed a profound flaw into marriage. Marriage itself was not flawed.
You have pointed at a variable feature, not a universal feature, and have mistaken racism for the core meaning of marriage even within the anti-miscegenation system.
Brian, thank you for the extensive reply.
Unfortunately, your account of marriage is incomplete, even if you have cited a few facts and some speculations.
People with little if any finanical assetts and with no property manage can and do marry. Landless peasants have married and still do.
Marriage is not reduced to a business partnership.
Even SSM argumentation does not reduce SSM to that.
What you have in described is a variable, not a universal, feature of marriage as a special type of contract under the law of the governing authorities.
* * *
The marital presumption of paternity is entailed in what people consent to when they enter the social institution of marraige. Consent is a requirement. The man-woman requirement is vogorously enforced in our legal system. These requirement do not fit SSM. But these are combined at the core of marriage. That core has not changed even if various protocols and regualtions surrounding it have varied from place to place, time-to-time, culture-to-culture.
Different societies adapt differently to this core meaning of marriage. But the core is not abolished or disregarded.
Now, I can think of one -- maybe two -- cultural examples of relatively short-lived versions of marriage that lacked one of the universal features. But these are so rare and exist only within a homogenous subgroup of a larger society that I don't think these apparent exceptions (and I say apparent due to insufficient hard evidence) define marriage nor do they overturn the core meaning of marriage across the anthropological and historicla record.
* * *
Brian said: "NUMEROUS historical, archeological, and anthropological references to Same Sex unions"
None that are treated as indistinct from marriage. None that are intrinsic to marriage. None that are accorded the special status of marriage.
Yes, there have been some recent writers who have speculated as you have recounted. But that's insufficient for the very broad claim you made. It really is.
* * *
In more simple english: marriage bonds men and women to each other and and to their children. Marriage is recognized by the governing authorties and is not owned by the state. Marriage is pre-political (even today) and is the bedrock of civilization (even today). It is not sex-neutral.
Brian I wish you and your partner happiness and well-being.
What you seek, a financial advantage based on the model of marriage, is alrady available through the long-existing provision for designated beneficiaries. It does not touch marriage, but not due to some anti-gay motivation.
Now, such provision can be made more accessible or affordable, if indeed these are actual problems, and can be uniformed as per the usual way that states bring their legal provisions into greater alignment. Any enhancements would follow the core meaning of such provisions -- which would not be gaycentric.
Families outside of marriage often experience certain vulnerabilities because of the lack of sex integration and the lack of responsible procreation. Often this is not due to the choice of people who find themselves in such scenarios.
I think that since the social institution of marriage has taken such a beating, and nonmarital trends have risen so rapidly, that society has an obligation to provide protections equally on this basis.
But that should not mean equating nonmarriage with marriage. Marriage has been weakened and it needs to be strenghtened. This is best done by reaffirming the core meaning. The influence on people that a foundational social institution can exert is nullified if its core meaning is negated. This is the problem with the proposed merger of SSM with marriage.
That said, I note that you have not explained how "gay marriage" is gay or how it is marriage. You said it is a business arrangement or a partnership to manage property. That makes it neither marriage nor gay.
Chairm: That said, I note that you have not explained how “gay marriage” is gay or how it is marriage. You said it is a business arrangement or a partnership to manage property. That makes it neither marriage nor gay.
Would it then be fair to say that what's being proposed through SSM isn't so much expanding the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, but rather we're diluting the definition to that of a civil union?
Marie, not even civil union.
What I see is a consistent complaint that the core of marriage is bigoted and unconstitutional.
Marriage is accorded a special status. It is preferred and given special treatment because of its societal significance. It makes normative the solidalrity of fatherhood and motherhood, for example. A very big deal.
But SSM argumentation has the effect of negating this core meaning.
And it goes further. It strips marraige of its preferential status. The social institution is demoted to a bundle of protections and its boundaries become aribitrary and meaningless. It prevents marriage from being a relevant and useful vehicle for social policymaking, much less for cultural sustainability.
But SSM argumentation goes even further. This core of marriage is being demoted to a barely tolerative status. That's what the issue about religious liberty and freedom of consience places front and center. The subtopic of "religious exemptions" shows how the core of marriage is being marginalized and the people who recognize marriage for what it is would be ostracized.
So this a drop from a preferential status to a barely tolerative status.
SSM argumentation amounts to a call for portections for families outside of marriage -- that is, if we recalibrate this argumentation to drop its assertion of identity politics.
There is widespread support, empathy, and societal advantage to pursuing such equality in protections -- something that the SSM campaign has often highlighted in the name of gay and lesbian people. But it goes beyond that tiny identity group.
This should instruct us that the campaign is about a cultural change being imposed through a legal change. It is about using marriage for a nonmarriage purpose. And it uses anti-marriage arguments and false equivalencies.
Chairm
You say, “Marriage is accorded a special status. It is preferred and given special treatment because of its societal significance. It makes normative the solidalrity of fatherhood and motherhood, for example. A very big deal.” Actually, it solidifies the role and position of parenthood, regardless of who’s doing the parenting. So long as society accepts the parenting rights of same-sex couples, which it appears to do, it is impossible to reject the right to marry of those parents. Encouraging heterosexual parents to marry, to solidify their relationship and stabilize the family unit, applies just as well to homosexual parents.
You say: “This should instruct us that the campaign is about a cultural change being imposed through a legal change.” You say it like it’s a bad thing. Changes in the law often precipitate social change.
You say: “And it goes further. It strips marraige of its preferential status. The social institution is demoted to a bundle of protections and its boundaries become aribitrary and meaningless. It prevents marriage from being a relevant and useful vehicle for social policymaking, much less for cultural sustainability.”
The status of marriage isn’t changed by who participates in it. Its boundaries, whatever that means, aren’t changed. It’s no more or less meaningful if same-sex couples can participate. If marriage was a “relevant and useful vehicle for social policymaking,” it will continue to be so. I think you’re predicting doom and gloom without much evidence. Again, compare the assault on marriage in our society with rampant adultery and easy divorce and tell me how same-sex marriage is remotely as threatening.
If marriage really occupied some near-magical properties for creating social stability, our country would not permit easy access to divorce as it does; unwed motherhood would be socially if not legally impermissible. Marriage appears to be vulnerable as an institution, only when same-sex partners want to participate, in your view. Its genuine vulnerability in the face of easy, socially acceptable divorce seems to go unnoticed by opponents of same-sex marriage. If divorce is accepted as an unfortunate but necessary option, why can’t same-sex marriage be viewed in the same way by those who oppose it?
To Chairm-
You said-
What you seek, a financial advantage based on the model of marriage, is alrady available through the long-existing provision for designated beneficiaries. It does not touch marriage, but not due to some anti-gay motivation.
me-
Unfortunatly you are incorrect. Civil Unions, health-care proxies, living wills, and final wills are routinely ignored and thrown out at the request of heterosexual family members oin the death of one or the other partner. It happen the majority off the time. There are NO legal protections afforded homosexuals that the courts will uphold against a heterosexual law-suit. Those are the fascts surrounding such "legally peotected" financial affairs that you refer to.
You also seem to continue to state that children are a requirement of marriage when it just ain'ty so. Children have absolutley 0% interest in marriage relations.
Also since in your opinion homosexuals cannot be married and by reality cannot form a legal partnership with any safety, then you are standing up for the status quo where homosexuals, even given in monogamous long term relationships , can only list them selves on any docuiment as single. That dual tax benefits and health insurance should remain out of reach for homosexuals.
This is absurd. There is a far difference between "just friends" to a spousal relationship. Civil Unions do not provide protection and neither does any law on the books. I guess I should just hurry yup and die and get out of heterosexuals hair for being so inconvenient as to ask for equal treatment and respect for my longterm, sexual, and procreative relationship. There is no difference in relationships between man/woman or same sex couples except for the object of affection and yet You want me to remain in the shadows. Hidden from view and relegated to back-alleys and bars. You want homosexuals to continue their promiscuity because there just is no reason not to do so if there is not a future to shoot for. You as a heterosexual can name a stranger as your helthcare beneficiary but I cannot name my partner. Unmarried couples who ahve lived together long enopugh gain all the rights and protections of marriage but let me have my relationship for 50 years and I cannot even be visited in the hospital because my partner is automatically not next of kin.
If I died, my partner could be thrown out of our mutally owned house and be dispossesed of everyy peice of furniture or stitch opf clothing at the whim of a woman,(my mother), who disowned me, and told me that my life isn't worth my brother and sister's reputation. She can come in and steal it all regardless of any legal documents.
Those are facts and so your arguement that these financial benefits are acheivable is false. It is that simple..
Jeffery said:
"[Marriage] solidifies the role and position of parenthood, regardless of who’s doing the parenting."
The marital presumption of paternity is part and parcel of marriage. This makes of the union of husband and wife a sexual type of relationship, at law.
There is no similair basis for "gay marriage". No form of parental status is based on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually.
You said: "So long as society accepts the parenting rights of same-sex couples, which it appears to do, it is impossible to reject the right to marry of those parents."
Here you depend on the inverse of the marital presumption of paternity.
It may surprise you but a father's parental status is not unilaterally destroyed just because his ex-wife has divorced him and moved-in with a woman sexual partner.
"Gay marriage" can not create directly the child-parent relationship, at law, that marriage does.
You might hope for some nonsexual alternative rule to apply to "gay marriage", but the point is that parenthood does not make of "gay marriage" a public type of relationship that is based on some public aspect of same-sex sexual behavior.
You'd agree, right?
You said: "Encouraging heterosexual parents to marry, to solidify their relationship and stabilize the family unit, applies just as well to homosexual parents."
That is mistaken. See the basis for the marital presumption of paternity.
Also, you are again using the false hetero-homo dichotomy for the purpose of asserting yet another false equivalency.
Jeffery said:
"compare the assault on marriage in our society with rampant adultery and easy divorce and tell me how same-sex marriage is remotely as threatening"
Threatening is your word.
You tell me what SSM is really about and then we can discuss how similair it is to the other evidence of an "assault on marriage" that you readily acknowledge.
Jeffery said: " Its boundaries, whatever that means"
Okay, I'll take that as a question. You meant to ask what is meant by my reference to the boundaries of marriage.
Well, eligiblity criteria are boundaries. And like boundaries in general, these are based on the thing inside the boundaries -- or the core of that which is being bounded.
Imagine a large circle. Its borders may be shades of grey but those borders demarcate what is and is not within the circle.
What is at the core of "gay marriage" if not gayness, if not sex-integration, if not provison for responsible procreation?
In other remarks, SSMers repeatedly point to the privileged status that is accorded marriage. Well, accorded means that the meaning of marriage agrees with that status. That is to say, the status is produced by the core meaning of marriage. But SSMers go in the other direction and insist that the status creates marriage.
There is a starting place for the marriage law. And that is marriage itself.
If there is a starting place for SSM it would be SSM itself. Draw the circle. What is its center and please justify the borders, if any, based on what is inside.
If you can't, that's okay, since SSM argumentation generally produces a big shruge of the shoulders -- SSM has no core and has no core meaning -- except for gay identity politics.
I think that the SSM campaign might as well admit this outright instead of going on and on about so-called equal rights and the like.
To Chairm-
The reply above was not intended to be an attack on you and the belligerance is borne of frustration.
Frustration because I am so tired of being told that I am not deserving of the same rights and priveledges as heterosexuals all for the sake of what is in essence a religious aversion to homosexuality.
I have found that interacting with you is a pleasure and yet to consistently hear that you are considered or valued as much as, or even less than, the family pet.
To Charim-
I would have to disagree that every reference in history is not about man/woman bonding nor is it about paternity, It is always referred to as a financial arrangement. That was true then and it remains true to this day. Nothing in marriage demand paternity nor bonding between the members in a marriage.
As to the peasant issue, peasants were not allowed to marry. They could co-habitate but the right of marriage was determined by the local lord and if they would not allow their peasantry to marry then the heterosexual couple was just SOL. Even those who have limited resources today bond together an are able to pool their respective resources with a surety that their wishes and their propertuy, such as it is, will be protected. That is not the case with homosexuals that bond for life. Without the sanction of civil marriage, the status quo will not change. Hoomosexuals will still have to pay as much in taxes to the government for less protection from that government. Homosexuals will still have to sit in the proverbial back of the bus. Homosexuals will continue to be beaten and those police forces meant to protect and serve will still be able to legally refuse aid to homosexuals. Homosexual victims of violence will still continue to be treated as the perpetrator rather than the victim and often be charged with assault merely for having blood flowing freely. homsexuals will still remain isolated and alone in times of health-crisis, and at the whim of vindictive and non-supportive heterosexuals, they will still be dispossed. Until there are adequate protections, available through the state of marriage and not through Civil unions, homosexuals will remain the target of legal discrimination. Heterosexuals are at present criominalizing hokmosexuals anf if the trend continues, we homosexuals may have Auschwitz to look forward to all over again.
Brian said:
"Civil Unions, health-care proxies, living wills, and final wills are routinely ignored and thrown out at the request of heterosexual family members oin the death of one or the other partner. It happen the majority off the time."
1. You use the false homo-hetero dichotomy.
2. The courts do not routinely throw-out wills and health proxies.
3. I doubt you can backup your assertion about "the majority of the time".
* * *
You said:
"Children have absolutley 0% interest in marriage relations."
The marital presumption of paternity demonstrates your assertion is false. It is one of the most robust legal provision in our legal system.
But your view of marriage would brush that aside. Why did that become so important to you? Why should that be more important than the most pro-child social institution we have?
Mabye you'd just shrug, I dunno.
* * *
You said:
"Also since in your opinion homosexuals cannot be married"
I have repeatedly pointed out that there is no sexual orientation requirment in the marriage law -- neither for eligibility nor for ineligibility.
Meanwhile provison for designated beneficiaries remains the apt solution for the actual problems, even as you've described them to be.
Also, it is horribly accusatory for you to suggest that people here want you to "hurry up and die". It is awful that you feel that way and would say it that way. But that is not what the actual disagreement is about. Not by a very long shot.
You are free to live and love as you wish. Choosing a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised (and protected) and not a right denied.
You then describe your relationship as 1) longterm 2) sexual and 3) procreative.
If it is one-sexed, it is not procreative. If may be sexual but there is nothing in the law governing SSM that would make it sexual by type, at law. If it is longterm, then, it shows that the government's licensing it is probably not about longevity of the relationship.
But all of what you said about the relationship can fit very well with the provision for designated beneficiaries.
Indeed if you have in mind a financial partnership, then, contract law is at your disposal.
Marriage, on the other hand, is far more than a financial partnership. It is sex-integrative and provides for responsible procreation; it is foundational to civilization.
"Gay marriage", at law, is neither gay nor marriage; it is sex segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation; where chldren are involved, it is disunites fatherhood and motherhood; and it is not a foundational social institution.
Whatever its merits, and demerits, laws that govern it ought to be based on its core meaning -- its societal signficance. Provision for designated beneficiaries more than suffices as would the use of contract law for a business type partnership.
If you want more, you need to justify it based on the essential features of the type of arrangement you have in mind.
Contrary to the false homo-hetero dichotomy, marriage is not about treating heterosexual people differently from homosexual people.
Sadly, the SSM campaign has tried to use marriage to assert something else. Instead, why not make the case for the type of relationship, or the kind of arrangement, that you have in mind? Why not show that this merits some kind of status, at law, that is protective -- since you argue so much about protections? Instead SSM campaign's main theme is to treat homosexuality as deserving special status in the law -- by merging nonmarriage with marriage. That puts homosexuality at odds with marriage on a scale that was never intrinsic to the marriage law.
It is a pointless conflcit created by gay identity politics. It is not the product of marriage and its core meaning -- sex integration and responsible procreation.
As for protections, which you have emphasized, the need is felt beyond gay and lesbian people -- it is felt by nonmarital families across the spectrum. Why should the homosexual population be the focus of such protections when just a tiny portion of the families in need?
And why should such protections be demanded at the cost of the special status of the core meaning of marriage?
The SSM campaign is rather silent on all of this. Instead the focus of the gay activists is not on justice, but on "just us".
Brian, talk of Auschwitz is over the top. I hope you'll reconsider that part of your remark.
Identity politics is a double-edge sword. Even people who are part of the identity group have no guarantee of being protected against its excesses. There are different version of identity politics (racial, religious, class, ethnic, and on and on) but asserting supremacy over the rule of law or over civil society is a sadly recurring theme in the history of totalitarianism. I speak with firsthand knowledge of this.
Chairm
“Why should the homosexual population be the focus of such protections when just a tiny portion of the families in need?”
Why did the US Supreme Court accept a case involving interracial marriage when so few couples are involved? Are justice and equality reserved only for groups with numerical critical mass? I don’t think so.
“It is not the product of marriage and its core meaning — sex integration and responsible procreation.”
The state does not, repeat, does not grant marriage licenses for the purpose of encouraging procreation. Or to “integrate the sexes,” whatever that means. Both activities occur quite naturally, without state intervention or encouragement. If anything, the state discourages procreation, with legalized birth control and abortion. What the state DOES do is define the rights and privileges that a married couple enjoys, as well as determine who can participate, that is, who is eligible to receive a marriage license.
As with any right, when the state grants some couples, but not other couples, a marriage license, it has to have a good reason for doing so. Depending on the wording of a state’s constitution, state supreme courts may or may not strike down discriminatory marriage statutes. Clearly courts in Iowa and Massachusetts found those states’ marriage statutes unconstitutional.
“Choosing a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised (and protected) and not a right denied.”
Actually it is a right denied, as the Iowa Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision noted. To paraphrase a point from their decision: “offering the right to marry a person of the opposite sex to a homosexual is no more appealing than offering the right to marry a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Consequently, claiming that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is no right at all.” Therefore homosexuals have been singled out, that is, discriminated against, and prohibited from marrying.
“If it is one-sexed, it is not procreative.”
Wrong. Homosexuals are as fertile as heterosexuals. Two people of the same sex, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot conceive a child together. But surrogates, in vitro fertilization, and other methods result in babies in same-sex households.
“Contrary to the false homo-hetero dichotomy, marriage is not about treating heterosexual people differently from homosexual people.”
What’s false about it? It’s not false if you’re gay! You’re taking a hetero-centric point of view. You’re starting with marriage as inherently heterosexual. Many of us are seeing it as couple-centric. Homosexuals are creating loving, committed couples and wondering why they’re being treated differently under the law from the loving, committed heterosexual couple next door. And many heterosexuals are also wondering.
“Instead SSM campaign’s main theme is to treat homosexuality as deserving special status in the law”
Not special, equal. Homosexuality is nearly perfectly correlated with the formation of same-sex couples. In 45 states, same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying. Therefore, homosexuality is denied equal status as heterosexuality.
“Whatever its merits, and demerits, laws that govern it ought to be based on its core meaning — its societal significance”
Which is? Certainly it’s not about parenting, as married couples have no requirement to reproduce, and reproductive couples have no requirement to marry. There’s no penalty for single parenting. Maybe the government doesn’t really care if you get married or not. Maybe the government is just regulating a hugely popular activity, like driving a car, so as to minimize negative consequences. Such as when a man takes more than one wife or when people who are too young try to marry.
Thank you Jeffrey, very well said. Everything I've been thinking but been unable to put in to such clear words.
To Charim-
You are, like most heterosexuals, completly unwilling to deal with the truth that courts indeed do toss out the wills and wishes of homosexuals at the behest of a disgruntled and unsupportive family memeber. I have first hand experience with this. From the years of 1994 to 1998 I woprked in the HIV social services arena and as such went to 264 funerals. That would be bad enough but the worst part is that in 238 of those casese the surviving partner was dispossesed. It happens with more frequency than you would care to accept for yourself because top accept the truth is to see quite clearly the hate and discrimination that homosexuals feel.
Whenb I make statements such as Aushwitz, I am not joking and am completely serious. With the facts that are currewntly available it is NOT that far a stretch to see a retyurn to this persecution of homosexuals. The Patriot act allows any police force top enter your home without warrant nor is probable cause needed. The 4th amendment has been completely dismantled through this Bush legacy. Couple taht with the increase in criminalization of homosexuality and it is not that far to see homosexuals being carted off to Gitmo or some other sort of arranged camp. There is precedentr for the US doing these things. WW2 is a great example as well as the current Gitmo where people dissapear into the system regaredless of guilt or innocence. True there are some bad people at Gitmo but the majority of them are not and they are there only because someone gave out a name during torture. AND it is torture as defined, prosecuted and punished by the Untied States and any other trying to say different obviously didn't do to well in US history. You may say that homosexuals have all the rights that heterosexcuals do but if you care to read Virginia state law, you will find that there is in the state constitution three things that homosexuals may NOT do.
1) they may not marry
2) they may not have a Civil Union
3) they may not enter into any legal arrangement whereby they gain the "protections" financially that you propose.
Corporate law as well as personal law (wills and stuff) are not accessible by law to homosexuals. When they are available, they can and are struck down on a regular basis. I know you don't want to hear that because it shopws clearly that homosexuals are the targeted crowd being FORCED to live as others tell them. It is the homosexual that has and continues to be imposed upon not the other way around.
There is a clear and very loud portion of heterosexual s that do indeed wish that we homosexuals would just shut up and go away. They would rather that I be dead than offer me the same rights and priveledges that they enjoy and take for granted. I pay the same tax to the same governemnt and do not recieve equal protection under the law.
Yopu continue to espouse that children are a required part of marriage when they are not. Paternity or the lack of paternity does not affect marriage either pro nor con. Historically the core of marriage is and always will be financial. If children were the core then instead of every marriage reference being about dowries and alliances, property and politics, children would be the historically referenced state of marriage.
BTW peasants were uisually not allowed to marry unless they had permission from the local lord or baron. Peasantry marrying supposedly led to uprisings and therefore the landed gentry usaually prohibited marriage of any sort.
Other main cultyures do indeed list many different types of marriage arrangements and indeed homosexual marriages are listed quite openly with all the rights and priveledges extended to heterosexual marriage. In other words, there was no difference or dichotomy between homosexual or heterosexual marriage. Those are the facts and even though you may not like them, that doesn't change the reality that until the onset and cotrol wielded by the catholic church did homosexuality ever be reduced to secind class status. Homosexuality and homoosexual merriages were equal to heterosexual marriage in every way and was even seen as a nessesary part of development. (greek society which is the basis for our own democracy practised that in a huge way).
There is no dichoytomy except that which exists in your mind. Its basis is religion and only religion. You cannot base it on history and you cannot use science or sociology to prove your point because the facts do not suppoort your assertion.
Marriage of late has indeed been reduced legally to just m/f relations. Just look and DOMA. That specifically eliminates homosexuals from enjoying the freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy every day.
Homosexuals have at present in a few states the option of Civil Union that supposedly mimicks the protections of marriage. They are not equal and therefore your why not accept another defined relationship falls short. The only legal relationship that offers the type of protections is civil marriage.
These are not special rights nor special treatment but just wanting what you take for granted, Equality not more right tahn heterosexuals is the goal. Nothing special in wanting the same thing that you have. Nothing special about having the same needs ans wants as heterosexuals. There is no drive for special treatment at all. How hard it must be for you to be unable or unwilling to realize that fact.
Nothing but religious intolerance stands behind your position of anti-homosexual marriage. Something that this country was founded upon was the escaping of religious intolerance and religious persecution. Yet here we are 200+ years later facing religious intolerance and persecution based not in fact and reality but on amorphous religious beliefs. That is the entirety of the anti-gay movement--- religion.
Respectfully
Brian
Brian: Whenb I make statements such as Aushwitz, I am not joking and am completely serious. With the facts that are currewntly available it is NOT that far a stretch to see a retyurn to this persecution of homosexuals
I do often wonder... if SSM is protested on the grounds that homosexual "behavior" is immoral, then what's to stop the government from following through and criminalizing it?
Scary. It all reminds me of the mean, intolerant world described in "V for Vendetta" (a movie).
"Its basis is religion and only religion. You cannot base it on history and you cannot use science or sociology to prove your point because the facts do not support your assertion."
Brian, I think reading through Chairm's comments and the other comments in these threads, your assertion here is not borne out. There is a religious argument for marriage between a man and a woman certainly. There is also a scientific argument, a historical argument, and a sociological argument, none of which you have addressed. You have not brought forth anything but your wishes of what truth might be to support your assertions.
beetlebabee: There is a religious argument for marriage between a man and a woman certainly. There is also a scientific argument, a historical argument, and a sociological argument, none of which you have addressed.
There's no need. That's all just personal opinion, philosophy and theory. We'll never reach a unanimous consensus on what marriage "is, as it "means" something different to each of us.
Most states will eventually address the granting of the civil institution as a matter of law according to their particular constitutions. Simple as that. Everything else is just a distraction and diversion.
to Beetlebabee
As to what I was saying about the arguement against Gay Marriage is that every arguement is based in religion. You are talking of science and yet there are no studies that show the arguements of opponents to have any merit. That includes children born and raised in homosexual family units. That includes the occurance of pedophilia and the sociology studies show that homosexuality has absolutly no negative impact on society. Sociology also tends to proove thet acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality only benefits society. Historically before the advent of catholisism, homoosexuality was seen as normal and nesseccary to proper human and societal growth. Only when ther religious church exerted its religion over civil matters did homosexuality become taboo and even agressivly attacked.
The arguement of man bonding with woman as the only possible expression of marriage, comes directly from the pages of the bible, again religiousity.
I have indeed already addressed the issue of historical references to marriage and even provided examples of homosexual relationships and their portrayal of equality with heterosexual unions. From ancient greece, to celtic/germanic/ to american indian civilizations and plenty of others. ALL the history supports the cause of homosexual marriage and NO history supports the arguement against.
Blunt truth.
Brian, have you looked into the studies? They fall into two categories generally. Those who compare apples to apples, and those who compare apples to oranges and pretend it's apples to apples.
Everyone agrees that a stable home with a loving mom and dad, committed for life is the best possible arrangement for kids. It's the "gold standard" situation for kids.
Everything else is less than that. There is no situation comparable. Single moms, single dads, divorced/remarried couples, same sex couples, none of those can compare. With death, divorce etc, we do the best we can, but there is no reason to hold up a family that denies one gender and say that's equal to a family with both genders.
The sexes are different. Vastly so. I find it completely incomprehensible that anyone could gloss over a mom or dad's importance to a kid.
Brian,
Absolutely there is science. Show me a study that compares happily long term married families to happily long term committed homosexual couples. What do the statistics say?
At best they can say that short of the gold standard, it's hard to differentiate the effects of broken homes with homosexual couples raising kids.
That's not equality for the kids.
To Marlie-
I have looked into the studies and those that as you say judge marriage on one hand and everything else on the other hand are studies conducted by religious organizations.
The fact is that there are plenty of studies that show that children in homosexual households are as well adjusted as those in your "golden standard". The fact is that studies will also show that in every instance, children do better in a homosexual houshold rather than being left to the state. So we have equally well adjusted children on one hand (versus the golden standard), or better than equal when compared to state care.
The statistics of tyhe science between homoand heterosexual marriages prooves that both gay and straught marriages are equal on all counts. That is what the science shows. Nopw the religious "science" studies show exactly what the religious want them to say. They are not science nor are they in any way objective studies willing to accept the results. That is fact.
Every study to date shows that homosexual couples are as valid as heterosexual couples.
Jeffery said:
"Are justice and equality reserved only for groups with numerical critical mass? I don’t think so."
I said nothing about numerical critical mass.
You favor just a subset of the families in need of the protections you have repeatedly demanded in our discussions.
The needs are not limited by gayness. Yet your argument is limited by that.
Why?
Jeffery said:
"activities occur quite naturally, without state intervention or encouragement."
And that is so of everything you have said about "gay marriage".
However, I referred to responsible procreation. You dropped the responsible part. Indeed you keep added some compulsory force that you've conjured up.
Strawman argument, Jeffery, is the attempt to refute a misrepresentation of what someone has said.
Now that you have been corrected on this point, please try not to repeat the misrepresentation.
Jeffery said:
"when the state grants some couples, but not other couples, a marriage license, it has to have a good reason for doing so."
Back-up the truck.
First there needs to be a good reason for a license of any sort.
And for a special status there needs to be a special reason.
Based on that, then, rules of eligibility are drawn.
You are arguing that eligiblity be changed for the sake of a special status for which you have not justified in the first place.
Marital status is a special status. So if you think the relationship type you have in mind merits such a status, please justify it.
Crying "me too!" is insufficient. It realy is. Especially when your complaint is with the special reason for the special status. You must have some other special reason in mind, too.
If not, then, you do need to recalibrate your arguments. Especially the part where you said:
"[the state's job is to] determine who can participate, that is, who is eligible to receive a marriage license"
Jeffery quoted the Iowa Court:
“offering the right to marry a person of the opposite sex to a homosexual is no more appealing than offering the right to marry a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Consequently, claiming that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is no right at all.”
That's circular.
Marriage does not bar the individual based on sexual orientation.
That an individual would bar himself based on such a criterion is not evidence that there is "no right at all".
The quote you provided is evidence that the court's reasoning began with its conclusion and then planted its foot and pivoted in circles.
I said: “If it is one-sexed, it is not procreative.”
In response, Jeffery said:
"Homosexuals are as fertile as heterosexuals. Two people of the same sex, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot conceive a child together. But surrogates, in vitro fertilization, and other methods result in babies in same-sex households."
You just demonstrated that my statement is right.
Your last sentence lists examples of how a one-sexed scenario depends on the other sex to procreate.
And those methods do not depend on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangment might do sexually.
The SSM arrangement is not procreative -- not without the other sex. The use of the methods you listed does not change this basic fact of human physiology and biology.
A lone individual cannot be procreative solo; a same-sex twosome cannot be procreative solo; a roomful of persons of the same sex cannot be procreative solo; and this is true even if all these individuals were otherwise reproductively healthy.
The lack of the other sex is not infertility. It is not something broken that needs to be fixed. But it is nonprocreative because that's just the the way it is. Human procreation is not one-sexed and it is not sex-neutral.
You are a bright person. You must know this to be true. Yet you erred rather blatantly. This is evidence of the gaycentric identity filter at work.
Jeffery said:
"You’re starting with marriage as inherently heterosexual."
No, it is inherently two-sexed. And people who you single-out as homosexual have married and have had procreative sex and have lawfully been presumed fathers of the children born to their wives; or mothers impregnated by their husbands.
This is evidence that 1) the marriage law does not bar homosexual people and 2) the marital presusmption of paternity applies regardless of sexual orientation of either the husband or the wife.
You, not I, have been emphasizing sexual orientation.
Jeffery said:
"Homosexuality is nearly perfectly correlated with the formation of same-sex couples."
First, correlation is not causation, as SSMers have been fond of repeating.
Second, the correlation is not as strong as you claim most one-sexed arrangements which are ineligible are not homosexualized relationships.
Third, not all two-sexed arrangements are eligible -- because of the societal concerns about the core of marriage, which you deny even exists.
How do you equate 1) opposite-sex with 2) heterosexuality with 3)eligibility to marry? Heterosexuality would not make siblings eligible. Nor would it make polygamists eligible. Nor would it make underaged people eligible. And so forth.
Consent is insufficient.
Eligibility is a subset of #1 (opposite-sex) but there is no sexual orientation criterion in the marriage law. Sexual orientation is not a trump card for people you'd classify as heterosexual.
Eligibility is based on the meaning of marriage -- i.e. what marriage is.
It is not based on what SSM is. You keep running away from plainly stating the core meaning of SSM and justifying any boundaries around it. It seems for you there is no public meaning for SSM and, lacking that much, there are no sustainable criteria for eligibility.
That illustrates the arbitrariness of SSM agrumentation.
Brian said: "You are, like most heterosexuals ..."
That's an odd way to begin your comment. Again you've emphasized sexual orientation so much that you assert heterosexuality is the cause of my disagreement with you.
Yet is it not you who informed me that homosexuality is not the cause of your disagreement with me?
I don't know your sexual orientation -- not yours, not Jon's, not Marie's, not Jeremy's, and so forth -- and have no wish to verify it one way or the other. Yet you choose to refer to identity groups.
Let's stick with the actual disagreement, please.
The easy resort to identity politics is a profound flaw of SSM argumentation. It is actually self-defeating, as has illustrated previously. Unfortunately it is central to the SSM campaign's purpose and its rhetoric. People on the pro-SSM side need to dig a lot deeper than this superficial stuff.
You said:
"When I make statements such as Aushwitz, I am not joking and am completely serious."
Then you and I have little reason to continue this exchange.
I'll leave the last word to you.
Marie said:
"That’s all just personal opinion, philosophy and theory."
Maybe you would dismiss all of anthropology and all of history by making such a sweeping assertion.
Your personalized and subject opinion is valid, Marie, of course for you, but if that is all that you have to voice, then, you shouldn't be surprised that it carries little weight.
If it is your view that each person's highly subjective opinion is what must decide the issue, then, you've contradicted your previous remark about "mob rule".
And by trying to knock off the table the entire anthropological and historical record of marriage, you may think this evens things out. But it can't. It would destroy the claims in favor of SSM that have been voiced by plaintiffs and pro-SSM judges when they've talked of past injustices based on sexual orientation.
If the disagreement about marriage is not about the truth, then, it is not a disgreement. Just lots of meaningless noise. And that would negate the SSM campaign itself.
"Every study to date shows that homosexual couples are as valid as heterosexual couples."
That is of course, wishful thinking. You realize that right? Look at the study not by source, but by data. It's the only way to weed out the hard science data samples from the frilly agenda pushing ones.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=187&BISKIT=2764369109
This article talks about the flaws in studies most often touted by the activist gay movement when talking about parenthood. Love is great, but it's not everything.
In addition to kids needing a mom and a dad, there are the problems with the ability of homosexual couples to have stable, long term relationships in order to provide stable homes for kids. For whatever reason, same sex couples break up much more often than men and women, they live sexually riskier lives, with fewer monogamous couples than any other demographic.
Chairm! You're hot on a roll!
BeetleBee says:
“In addition to kids needing a mom and a dad, there are the problems with the ability of homosexual couples to have stable, long term relationships in order to provide stable homes for kids. For whatever reason, same sex couples break up much more often than men and women, they live sexually riskier lives, with fewer monogamous couples than any other demographic.”
Same-sex marriage, or lack thereof, imposes no obligations on same-sex couples’ choices with regards to parenting. You realize that, right? Same-sex marriage doesn’t have anything to do with children anymore than opposite-sex marriage does.
There’s actually no legal requirement to have a “stable, long-term relationship” in order to marry. Two people can know each other a week, dash off to Las Vegas, and get a quickie marriage. People can get married and divorced as many times as they want! Why, Rush Limbaugh has already married and divorced three times! Actually, lesbian couples have the least risky sex lives, in terms of sexually transmitted diseases. I don’t know anything about what kind of couples break up more but it isn’t really relevant information when discussing marriage. Maybe couples who can’t access marriage break up more because there’s less “glue” holding them together!
To Chairm-
I am sorry that you feel offended by the Aushwitz comment. I did explain the reasoning behind it. I had not addressed your personal experiences surrounding the issue because OI felt that if you had wanted me to know you would have said as much. Let me just say as a "final word", (your choice not mine), that the move towards criminalization of homosexuals and the active drive to keep homosexuals on the fringes of society hidden from view, scares the daylights out of me. Couple that with the insistance that I should just roll over and allow myself to be treated this way is something that one cannot do. I am sorry that you cannot see the issues over treatment under the law and the reality of being hoomosexual in today's climate. It is extremely polarized and that scares me. When the government abandons rule of law, when laws are written and passed that seek to deprive me of what you enjoy just as a matter of being, that seek to punish and intimidate homosexuals, and especially when people delude themselves by denying the truth of the matter and blaming the victim for the abuses then yes Aushwitz is an ending not so far-fetched.
I have tried to discuss with you. I told you then taht your vernacular is a little bit above my understanding so I have responded to your tones and that which I can relate to.
Your "core of marriage" example is an example that confuses me. Neither of your arguements need marriage to occur and seems to me that as you say, that if the core is not only found in marriage then you need to find a non-marital relationship. People have children out of wedlock and the paternity is assured. These couples may also be life-partners and they experience bonding male to female. Marriage is not needed for you to meet your own requirements. Sothe "core" is not the core but just another interpretation of marriage. Anyway if this is goodbye for you then I wish you well and I apologize for offending you but I do not apologize for the exchange.
Chairm
“If it is your view that each person’s highly subjective opinion is what must decide the issue, then, you’ve contradicted your previous remark about “mob rule”.”
This is a great point. We really should leave the matter of defining who gets to participate in marriage to the state legislatures and state courts, since the states decide what the rights and obligations of married couples are. This should not be put to a public vote, civil rights issue that it is. No matter should be considered through direct democracy that lets the majority satisfy its own needs (in this case, enjoy the right to marry), while denying that right to a minority.
To Beetlebabee-
The reason behind the promiscuity and high rates of separation are indeed social in nature. There is not incentive to stay together indeed it is punished. It is true also that we have higher incidence of self-desructive behavior due to the upbringing they recievd and the strugglkes of growing up homosexual. I noticed that your link also recorded that this remains triue where homosexuality is more accepted. This still does not surprise me because even though there are many countries that accept homosexuals, that refers mostly to governmental support and not nessesarily social acceptance. Especially not in western europe which overall is still highly charged with religious indoctrination. Anyway, I also read some of the referenced amterial and while there are a lot of big names, I did notice that the majority of references were pshycological in nature. To continue thinking of homosexuals as a phsycosis also shows bias on the part of the authors.
Of course I would really need to see more than an article opinion piece.
Chairm
“You favor just a subset of the families in need of the protections you have repeatedly demanded in our discussions. The needs are not limited by gayness. Yet your argument is limited by that. Why?”
Tell me what couples are being discriminated against in terms of access to marriage and I’ll tell you if I support their right to get married.
“However, I referred to responsible procreation. You dropped the responsible part. Indeed you keep added some compulsory force that you’ve conjured up.”
There is no requirement for procreation of any kind in order to get or stay married. ARGH!!!! If there’s no procreation requirement, then there can’t be a subset of it, which you like to call “responsible procreation.”
“Marital status is a special status.”
Fair enough. That doesn’t mean that access to marriage requires discrimination by way of gender.
“Crying “me too!” is insufficient. It realy is. Especially when your complaint is with the special reason for the special status. You must have some other special reason in mind, too. If not, then, you do need to recalibrate your arguments. Especially the part where you said: “[the state's job is to] determine who can participate, that is, who is eligible to receive a marriage license””
Chairm, there is no special status for some couples over others in my “consenting adults” world of marriage. That’s the whole point of the argument. Why are opposite-sex couples accorded unique status to get a marriage license in some states, while same-sex couples are denied. It’s the opposite-sex couples that have special privileged status: they’re allowed to do something that same-sex couples are not.
“Marriage does not bar the individual based on sexual orientation.”
I’m following the Iowa Supreme Court’s lead on this one, and saying it does. For all intents and purposes, in states that still discriminate, homosexuals are denied access to marriage rights and obligations, because they are unlikely to want an opposite-sex partner, and in fact reliably desire a same-sex partner. Saying that everyone has the right to something, but throwing a substantial roadblock in the way of some people, is discriminatory, and can eviscerate the right in the first place.
“The SSM arrangement is not procreative — not without the other sex. The use of the methods you listed does not change this basic fact of human physiology and biology.”
Thank goodness there is no legal requirement to procreate in the marriage statutes! Neither opposite-sex nor same-sex couples must bear or raise children in order to get married.
"Of course I would really need to see more than an article opinion piece."
LOL.
See the ample collection of footnotes for references, studies cited etc. (they're at the bottom of the page*)
Jeffery said:
"Tell me what couples are being discriminated against in terms of access to marriage"
Why only couples? You keep referring to consenting adults.
There are more people living in polygamous arrangements than there are in same-sex households. So you have this group.
And there are millions more people living in arrangements where children are being raised by parent-grandparent combinations. Some are same-sexed and some are not. So you have this group.
There are millions of single people living with room-mate and other nonsexualized friendships. Another group.
Also, there are single people living alone who would like many of the advantages that comes with marital status. Another subset of those outside of marriage.
The range is very wide.
But I would emphasize peolpe with dependants. Not just those with children but especially those with children.
Protections are what you've been emphasizing. The need far exceeds the narrow view you have been representing.
On the other hand, there is a huge need for the affirmation of at least two things I've explained are universals of marriage. This merits a special status for the most pro-child social institution that we have. It merits a special status due to the bringing together of the two great halves of humanity -- man and woman. This goes beyond the private aspect and well into the multi-layered public significance of -- for one huge example -- the solidarity of motherhood and fatherhood. Marriage makes this normative.
SSM cannot do that hard work. And merging SSM with marriage actually is a very public negation of this. Indeed, it stigmatizes this core meaning. Nothing you've said thusfar can justify such drastic actions.
But on the other hand, protection equality can justify just about all that you have said about the need for protections. And that's not limited by gayness.
Jeffery said:
"If there’s no procreation requirement, then there can’t be a subset of it, which you like to call “responsible procreation.”
I have not been saying that procreation is compulsory.
I have referred to the provision for responsible procreation.
Provision for. Responsible. Procreation.
I explained the first principle of responsible procreation so I don't see how you can continue to misconstrue my meaning.
When people enter marriage they consent to this lawful presumption. It is not just a custom or a tradition. It is a vigorously enforced legal requirement.
Provision for does not mean mandating or forcing. But a man is the father of his children born to his wife during their marriage. And that carries great legal force -- and cultural force to back it up.
If it is challenged, then, courts are very reluctant to permit a 3rd party to intervene -- with the use of governmental powers to investigate -- if the marriage is intact. This is due to the societal significnce of the social institution: we seek to protect the children, the parents as individuals, and the marriage of the parents, as well as the social institution itself.
But if a husband, or the wife, challenge the legal presumption, then, a court might defer to their priorities. If the husband and wife are seperated and there is some cause to believe there has been adultery, then, again, a court may use discretion and intervene or not.
In any case, the criteria for a challenge is based on the opposit-sex essentials of human procreation.
So marriage is a public and a sexual type of relationship. The marital presumption of paternity makes this so for marriage -- as a type of relationship in the law. It is not called the marital presumption without good reason, obviously.
Now, this is the provision for responsible procreation as expressed in our legal system. It is not a standalone. It is combined with the societal significance of bonding men and women together. Not just this or that particular man and woman -- but across society via the most foundational of social institutions.
The combination is most obvious where motherhood and fatherhood are united rather than divided. And it is in marriage that this is most obvious.
Now, since you have highlighted the instrumentalization of marriage for the sake of a subset of the nonmarriage category, I've constrained my remarks to the usefulness of marriage to a culture and its civilization. It is also intrinsically a human good. But I think the real disagreement on a public policy level is about what marriage does for society rather than what government does for marriage.
Government recognizes what marriage is. And if we blind government to this, then, we remove the core meaning of marriage from the law and social policy. And that helps no one in partcular and no one in general.
Jeffery said:
"I’m following the Iowa Supreme Court’s lead on this one, and saying it does."
Then you bind yourself to its reliance on same-sex sexual attraction and romance.
And that was pulled out of nowhere.
Jeffery, while we have discussed much of your viewepoint, it appears you are very reluctant to apply your own stated standards to test your viewpoint.
Why is that?
"Show me a study that compares happily long term married families to happily long term committed homosexual couples."
Okay;
Crowl, Alicia, Ahn, Soyeon & Baker, Jean (2008). A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4 (3), 385-407. Retrieved June 02, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1080/15504280802177615
Not just one study, a meta-analysis of NINETEEN studies. Look it up, and note the ample footnotes
"What do the statistics say?"
That on many aspects such as; Parent-Child Relationship, Gender Role Behavior , Gender Identity, Children's Cognitive Development , Children's Psychological Adjustment, Children's Sexual Preferences, there is no statistical differences between children of married opposite-sex parents and children of same-sex parents. The ONLY statistical difference is that the same-sex parents report a better Parent-Child Relationship than the heterosexual parents, but all things are equal from the child's point of view.
Woops, well I messed up on the last bit of that citation... Didn't need to include the "retrieved from..." thing, and that link will probably take you nowhere unless you're logged in from my university library site. Oh well, the rest of the reference is just fine =)
Eva, you are familiar with this survey of other studies, yes? Please demonstrate your familiarity:
How many children in homosexual househodls were studied in the aggregate? And the breakdown in how these children were attained? And how these samples were selected?
Thanks.
Chairm
“But a man is the father of his children born to his wife during their marriage.” We may be reaching an impasse on this particular topic but what does marriage have to do with paternity? It sounds like a man who fathers a child with a woman he is married to has a stronger claim to those children than the man who fathers a child with a woman he is not married to. If that’s what you mean, I think that makes sense. But what does it have to do with same-sex marriage? How would this not also impact infertile different-sex couples?
I wonder why the Iowa state attorney general either didn’t use this argument, or if he did use it, it failed.
““I’m following the Iowa Supreme Court’s lead on this one, and saying it does.” Then you bind yourself to its reliance on same-sex sexual attraction and romance. And that was pulled out of nowhere.”
I’m happy to be so bound. I think the Court was relying on why or how couples form. In essence, the long history of different sex couples may be more a function of prohibitions on homosexual relations rather than anything particularly special about male/female couples. Now that same-sex couples are viewed by society as important and valuable, and homosexual sex is no longer criminalized, it just makes sense to update marriage statutes to reflect these cultural changes. Clearly same-sex couples can enjoy the benefits of marriage as well as different-sex couples. Nothing in the marriage statute requires a gender basis. Only when it comes to access does gender appear to play a role, artificially it appears.
“Jeffery, while we have discussed much of your viewepoint, it appears you are very reluctant to apply your own stated standards to test your viewpoint. Why is that?”
What do you mean? My viewpoint is that consenting adult couples should be able to marry. That’s my standard. I reach that standard because I don’t think the state should violate ITS standard to avoid unnecessary discrimination. I think adult citizens should have the right to marry the person who consents to marry them. I favor couples marrying but if prohibitions against polygamy are found to be unconstitutional, then groups should be able to get married, too.
I think adult citizens should have the right to marry the person who consents to marry them.
See, I'm not so sure. In the perfect world, I might say, "any two consenting adults in an intimate, romantic relationship should be able to marry."
That's unworkable in the real world of course, as there's no way to "test" for it. But see, with opposite-sex couples, intimacy is kinda implied. Most people are heterosexual, so it's likely that a male/female couple who applies for marriage does so because they're romantically involved.
But if we strip the opposite-sex requirement out, marriage becomes between "any two people who want to exploit the benefits of the institution of marriage.
And suddenly there's no "point" to marriage anymore, it becomes an end in itself. We're then saying that the rewards and benefits are completely arbitrary, don't "mean" anything, aren't to "encourage" anything other than two adults bonding to gain them. But you might as well offer free coffee for it's benefit at that point, lol.
I mean OK, maybe in it's Real World application it doesn't really matter. It's mostly semantics and it doesn't seem like hordes of (just friends) same-sex opportunists are getting married in SSM or Civil Union states to exploit it's benefits.
But I can see the objection.
Marie
I said: “I think adult citizens should have the right to marry the person who consents to marry them.”
You said: See, I’m not so sure. In the perfect world, I might say, “any two consenting adults in an intimate, romantic relationship should be able to marry.” That’s unworkable in the real world of course, as there’s no way to “test” for it.
I totally disagree. In fact, if society truly valued marriage, it would make couples of either sexuality apply for a marriage license and wait one year for it to become valid. What’s striking to me is how easy it is to marry someone. That ease implies a lack of value: stuff that is easy to obtain often isn’t worth very much. If we make married couples wait some period of time to dissolve the marriage, we should also make couples wait some period of time to create the marriage. Then it would seem more valuable, and worth maintaining. The value of marriage doesn’t come from its “genderness,” it comes from peoples’ commitment to it, and that commitment doesn’t seem very great in our society. I can imagine the day when there’s a website like this where genuinely pro-marriage forces (unlike this website, which is actually for opposite-sex marriage only) of either sexuality versus easy-marriage forces debating how easy or hard it should be to get married!
“But see, with opposite-sex couples, intimacy is kinda implied. Most people are heterosexual, so it’s likely that a male/female couple who applies for marriage does so because they’re romantically involved.
But if we strip the opposite-sex requirement out, marriage becomes between “any two people who want to exploit the benefits of the institution of marriage.”
That most people are heterosexual doesn’t make their motives more virtuous. Women marry men for their money, men marry their wives for their looks or for what they think is ready access to sex LOL. People of either sex marry for loneliness. There is an abundance of bad reasons to get married, for people of either sexuality.
“And suddenly there’s no “point” to marriage anymore, it becomes an end in itself.”
You’re starting to sound like Chairm, lol. Maybe I have an unromantic view of marriage but it only applies to who can participate. I actually have, I think, a complex and rich appreciation for the experience of marriage, which is of far importance, and which I see no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
The belief, real or feigned, by opponents of same-sex marriage that SSM devalues the concept of marriage is highly subjective. I don’t see marriage as a “luxury good,” requiring exclusivity in order to maintain value. If SSM devalues marriage, what is one to make of divorce?
“We’re then saying that the rewards and benefits are completely arbitrary, don’t “mean” anything, aren’t to “encourage” anything other than two adults bonding to gain them.”
The rewards and benefits don’t change depending on who participates in marriage. Couples will form, regardless of whether marriage is available or not.
"STILL STANDING IN THE MIDDLE FOR MARRIAGE" rally was in Fresno last Sunday. This was held in response to the gay "Meet in the Middle" rally held in Fresno the day prior. Gay activists believe that Fresno is the conservative center of California, and they are determined to influence the central valley. Since the central valley voted overwhelming for Prop 8, they believe that "as Fresno goes, so goes California" - and "as California goes, so goes the nation". According to Pastor Jim Franklin [Cornerstone Church in Fresno and coordinator of the event], this is only the beginning of the battle as the gay activists continue to pressure conservatives in CA into relinquishing their beliefs.
See photos and news links at:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/REVELATION-RAINBOW/54289908070
There are also links to the news articles on the event.
Thousands of Revelation Rainbow wristbands were worn by proponents of traditional marriage.
The RevelationRainbow.com website is dedicated sharing the Biblical worldview on today's issues.
http://revelationrainbow.com/Licensed_to_Wed.asp
I actually have, I think, a complex and rich appreciation for the experience of marriage, which is of far importance, and which I see no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
That statement by Jeffrey notes once again the harm he wishes to do to marriage.
Instead of marriage carefully watching over a particular practice of how humans naturally mate, he wishes to remake everyone's marriage into nothing more than his own (and I quote) "complex and rich appreciation for the experience of marriage".
In fact, to see just how rich and complex his view, he later compares his view of marriage to divorce...
I don’t see marriage as a “luxury good,” requiring exclusivity in order to maintain value. If SSM devalues marriage, what is one to make of divorce?
While appreciate the candor, it is actually shocking to see such a blatant comparison of "SSM" and divorce as both engendering the same benefit to society.
I can see the bumper sticker now, "SSM, at least we are a good for the marriage institution as the divorce rate!"
Jeffery said:
"It sounds like a man who fathers a child with a woman he is married to has a stronger claim to those children than the man who fathers a child with a woman he is not married to."
It sounds like that because that is how it actually is, at law.
Also note that a married man who impregnates an unwed mother does not create a presumption of maternity whereby his wife is the mother of another woman's children. This is because of the opposite-sex basis of human procreation.
* * *
Your remark, as quoted above, suggests you find this baffling somehow.
Maybe you think a man, at random, should be presumed the father of children born to the husband and wife down the road? Even if, perhaps especially if, that man has never had the opportunity to impregnate the mother? The husband should not be presumed the father because this would be very unreliable?
What would such a default position serve?
* * *
When a marriage is intact, courts show deferrence to the husband and wife. If an outsider, a 3rd party, challenges paternity, the courts are very reluctant to intervene.
If the husband challenges paternity, the court may use its discretion and allow the challenge to proceed. The basis for an interventin begins with the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife. Or, conversely, the opportunity of the wife to have been impregnated by her husband. The latter is not always enough for an intervention if the former has been established. Discretion usually means judicial restraint. But challenges are still possible -- and sometimes in statutes the criteria are carefully codified.
When husband and wife are seperated, the court might use its discretioni to permit a challenge by a 3rd party -- such as a man claiming to be the father. Again, the criteria for the presumption of paternity that applies to the husband AS WELL AS the criteria for a challenge to that presumption are based on the opposite-sex nature of human procreation.
No matter how this is sliced, this makes of marriage a sexual type of relationshp; adultery is also based on this central aspect. As does consummation and annulment and other provisions in the law of marriage.
But the marital presumption of paternity has been imitated, in some jurisdictions, with an unwed presumption of paternity. This also has the same opposite-sex basis.
The government -- and the judiciary acts as an arm of government on behalf of society -- privileges marriage first to protect the children, also to protect the parental status of the husband and the wife, also to protect their particular marriage, and also to protect the social institution of marriage itself.
Unwed procreation does not get the same deferrential treatment. Also, interventions are more readily achieved even if more cumbersome to implement. All that said, the marital presumption of paternity is much more reliable than is the unwed presumption of paternity. This shows the influence of the principles of responsible procreation which marriage, rather than cohabitation, makes normative.
Nothing that an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually could rise to the signficance of the basis for the presumption of paternity as exists within marriage or outside of marriage.
Sure, you might rely on some other concept, such as the nonsexual basis for relatively new doctrines of parentage. But such a nonsexual concept would not make SSM, at law, a sexual type of relationship.
Marriage is a sexual type of relationship for reasons that are anti-thetical to SSM argumentation.
Well, arcane arguments against same-sex marriage are unlikely to convince fair-minded jurists and regular folks enough to ignore discrimination and what's best for children. From a legal standpoint, I think Equal Protection doctrine is the strongest argument in favor of SSM. But in convincing the uncertain citizen, creating the more stable environment for children, with married parents, probably plays best.