Continuing the high-level debate on marriage in The Public Discourse, Sherif Girgis responds to two of his academic critics who label views like his homophobic and bigoted, and hope to drive people like Girgis out of the academic world:
No serious philosopher would deny, in so many words, that to demonize opponents is to betray the vocation of philosophy. Yet some academic philosophers are so bound to the cause of redefining civil marriage that they would marginalize dissenters with epithets and analyze them as specimens of psychological pathology. Chappell, though he goes on to ask serious questions, is at pains to deny that he deems our argument worth engaging. For him, it is, like misogyny, merely unreasonable, subrational, and bigoted. Linking to Chappell’s critique, Brian Leiter repeats the charge and presumes to diagnose us.
The fervent policing of this newfound academic consensus, with its chilling effect on discourse, might be defensible if proponents of the conjugal view were, like Nazis or cannibals, advocates of ideas and policies repugnant to deep, enduring principles of our civilization. Yet even within the small, unrepresentative society that is academic philosophy, the very idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed mostly baffling (perhaps even patriarchally motivated) less than a generation ago. One might see the striking subsequent development as an epiphany of timeless moral principle denied the human race (including the sexual-traditionalist Mahatma Gandhi and other partisans of cruel and complacent class ideologies) these several millennia; or one might judge the cause of redefining civil marriage to be a fashionable application of a perfectly disputable view of sex and human goods that has grown to dominate in the academy from its proximate roots in the ’50s and ’60s, in Sanger and Hefner, Kinsey and Reich.
44 Comments
I really wish NOM would publish articles such as the original one written by Girgis. I am only a few pages in, but it seems the most well reasoned non religious arguments against same sex marriage.
However, while the idea of homosexual loving relationships is not a "deeply held ideal" from history (which just makes me think that no one wrote about them), the fact is that any argument for one man one woman marriage is inherently discriminatory to same gender loving individuals. This is the reason why it is abhorrent in academic circles. "When in the course of human events" we have the opportunity to right an injustice, and truly declare that "all men are created equal," many academics champion that change towards equality.
I welcome more academic texts such as this. But, I would rather have the defense of an unpopular opinion focus on that opinion, rather than the characteristics of the individuals holding the opinions.
There is no basis on which to contend that "same gender loving" is of as much worth to human society as the relationship between male and female.Nor can desire to do something suffice to erase objections to it by others.
"[S]ame gender loving individuals" do not exist. If two individuals really love each other, they want the best for each other. The best is self-evidently opposite-sex loving.
Had the chance to read your fine thesis about whh one man and one woman marriage is important. I then read the critics and noticed the main fallacies of their pro SSM argument.
(1) The first paragraph says it all. The author simply goes on the attack. You are right when you cannot rebute the main arguments just name call and declare someone a bigot.
(2) It is obvious that this author knows nothing about biology or just chooses to ignore the human anatomy. There is a sound biological reason why men and women have those biological parts.
(3) One again they make the same old tired argument that procreation is not neccessary in marriage, it is not an issue so just give out those licenses to the same sex couples. However he ignores the fact that the benefits that come with those licenses is the incentives to procreate. Ever notice that the SSM advocates dismiss procration as unimportant and yet are fighting for those procreation benefits?
Just because procreation is not necessary to a marriage does not mean it isn't the ideal.If you think of procreation as a bullseye and an opposite-sex partner as a target and those of one's own sex as fellow archers...it's reasonable to require that you commit to firing toward targets,not fellow archers,to be allowed bow and arrow in hand,whether or not you ever hit the bullseye.
Dr. Morse has something to say on this topic as well:
"We often hear the objection that some marriages don’t have children. This is perfectly true. However, every child has parents. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child, and should not be done without some compelling or unavoidable reason. The objection that some marriages don’t have children stands the rationale for marriage on its head. It views marriage strictly from the adult’s perspective, instead of from the child’s perspective."
NOM also has another site ruthblog.org where articles and excerpt are posted with links to the originals.
Its rational and proper to discriminate based on the merits of conduct or outcome. If the academic community finds that abhorrent it would be mistaken to do so. That is what I think has happened in this case.
Physical traits like skin color belong to one category; behavioral traits, like men having sex with men, belong to another category.
When society disapproves of a behavior that merits disapproval, the academic community should not abhor that as if it was discrimination against a physical trait.
If a group is “a minority” based on a physical trait, like hair color, the law requires equal treatment. We do not vote on that.
But if a group is “a minority” based on a behavioral trait, such as the “smoker class” would be a minority, or the “porn user class” would be a minority, and “men who have sex with men,” would be a minority, the law does not require equal treatment.
In those cases, we can vote to limit the behaviors based on the merits and drawbacks of those behaviors with regard to the good of society.
We must refuse to change the “behavioral principles” upon which society makes value based judgments.
The right of gays, lesbians, or polygamists to have marriage based on "their" behavioral trait is not a civil right.
Gays try to get around this by claiming their behavior is not “what they do” but its “who they are.” This concept is “a legal novelty” and not an established point of law. Law presumes behavior depends on choice unless the person is not in control of their faculties.
But even if we suppose gays cannot help what they do, that alone would not make their behavior a good fit for marriage. Whether or not the behavior is fit is measured by what the behavior does and not whether it can be helped or not.
Thus, regardless if gay behavior can be helped or not, it still comes down to the merits and drawbacks of the behavior.
Right on Louis E.
Two bows, or two arrows, will get you nowhere. Hit or miss, it takes one bow and one arrow to be called "Archery".
Once again, we see that separate is never equal.
@Louis
The argument from the academic paper is not that "procreation" is necessary to a marriage, but that the "conjugal joining" of male and female is the only act that can create a marriage. The authors never state how they feel about heterosexual married couples that cannot have sex, nor do they discuss how numerous acts of the conjugal nature are performed daily without marriage bonds.
Personally,I see partners always being of opposite sexes as far more important than the intent or capacity of any consensual human sex act.Marriages are a special case of opposite-sex relationships.
Not long ago fornication laws made it illegal to have sex outside of marriage.
On the negative side, marriage protected the couple from legal penalty. On the positive side, it formally recognized and dignified a couple's sexual relationship before the law and society.
Although legal penalty for fornication is no longer enforced, marriage would still protect a couple from penalty if such laws were restored.
This is because marriage still retains its positive role of formally recognizing and dignifying a couple's sexual relationship before the law and society.
Public morality is also satisfied by marriage. Sex outside of marriage still has a social stigma that is taken away only by marriage.
This also means, however, that a same sex marriage law would confer public recognition on men having sex with men, which is a maladaptive behavior at many levels.
Society has the right to withhold approval or recognition from behaviors that are not good for the general population to adopt.
It also has the right to selectively approve or recognize only behaviors that would be good if everyone generally adopted them.
This idea was touched upon in Lawrence v,. Texas:
"... a personal [same sex] relationship...is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals .... The present case.. [however]...does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
Thus, Lawrence forbids criminalizing private homosexual relationships between consenting adults but it permits public policy to formally recognize and prefer opposite sex relationships with marriage.
On a slightly different note, society must keep a balance in its policy so that the "default" remains the norm and "exceptions" remain exceptions. Exceptions should not become the norm.
Exceptions should be legally crafted so they have a short leash.
To say same sex couples should be permitted to marry because infertile couples can marry is like saying "a little bit of exception" justifies "unlimited exception." But in that case, the exception is no longer an exception.
A correct policy will keep exceptions minimized so they do not compete with the norm.
A security fence with a small hole does not mean the gate should be removed, for example.
Bman, you make a lot of sense, and don't name-call to make your case. I'm really enjoying your comments. Good food for thought.
All ideas should be discussable, in theory, but most will be rejected out of hand because they are inconsistent with our societies' values. Whether the society we are talking about is academia, or america, those who support views now seen as "bad" (I use the word in quotes because in this context the word depends on the person) such as racism, sexist, or homophobia will be ostracised. I think this is wrong, as the best way to deal with "bad" ideas is to defeat them soundly with logic.
But here is the problem, we cannot defeat antigay/profamily advocates because they are not using a logic based argument, but a faith based one.
In america it is very difficult to get people to justify what they believe using reason and theological debate rather than faith and bible usage.
So, I would ask you to use evidence beyond your faith to argue this issue, to prevent being ignored out of hand.
Nice straw man Sean, but it lacks heart. Science, history, social science and good old common sense all collude together against your philosophy.
I'm not trying to misrepresent your views, tell me why I'm wrong, or which one of your views I've misrepresented. If you're going to challenge something I've said, please point to what I've said you disagree with, e.g.:
"Science, history, social science and good old common sense all collude together against your philosophy." - My philosophy that your arguments are being unfairly treated because they are faith based, or my philosophy that ssm should be treated the same as opposite sex marriage (osm)?
TC Matthews (#14), for every piece of research that supports the same-sex opponents there is at least one other piece of research that says otherwise. Problem is that a lot of people here support the notion that same-sex supportive research came about through bullying or otherwise "indoctrinating" researchers or the organizations they work for. Apparently they believe those researchers are incapable of providing honest research. As long as that notion is around, there can simply be no fair scientific debate. Put otherwise, if those people will not acknowlegde said research, why should ssm proponents bother acknowledging the opposite research?
History is not the be all and end all argument either. Throughout history, views on a lot of things has changed. Not too long ago, society was very different from today. Slavery, women's suffrage, interracial marriage, secularization, all of these things were very different at some point.
Yes, it is certainly true that most states have legislative amendments that ban same-sex marriage that have been added since around the start of DOMA. On the other hand, pretty much every poll shows an increase in people that support gay rights, civil unions and same-sex marriages. This is especially true for the generations of 35 and younger and even more pronounced in the last two or three years. Just because the amendments are the law, doesn't mean they are necessarily a proper reflection of todays society. I am convinced that in a just few more years, the overall support for gay rights is undeniably there.
There is no simple black or white answer to social issues. Attempting to make it a black and white issue while research and social views are at the very least undetermined is in my opinion a failed attempt at trying to grasp the bigger picture. Over 300,000 teens are kicked out of the house after coming out, a number of students have killedl themselves after being bullied and there are still gay partners that cannot visit their dying partner in hospital. Gays are still very much a vonurable group. I disagree with the notion that NOM by definition is a hate group or its supporters bigots, but I do doubt how many of you are willing to try and understand the position of those that you oppose.
Sean, you have indeed tried to misrepresent my views. LOL. You disregard every part of the defense of marriage except your favorite parts, and then you attempt to knock those down with a good round of name calling.
Johan,
"why should ssm proponents bother acknowledging the opposite research?"
There are mountains of studies showing that children need a mother and a father, and that families do best with a mom and a dad. These studies are not necessarily limited to the marriage debate. If you do not trust the studies done by researchers with an opinion on the subject, then follow studies outside that arena. There are thousands of them, all supporting the conclusion that kids do best with a mom and a dad and that gender matters.
"Throughout history, views on a lot of things has changed."
Just because something happened in history doesn't make it awesome, you're right--- but that point does not address my argument. Marriage works. History has proven it to be so. SSM doesn't work. Can you show a single society which has embraced ssm and thrived long term?
"I am convinced that in a just few more years, the overall support for gay rights is undeniably there."
Public polls are worth what you pay for them. The only poll that counts is the one at the voting booth... but don't take my word for it, I'm sure your crystal ball knows better.
"There is no simple black or white answer to social issues."
That may be true, but that doesn't mean your philosophy is a good one to adopt.
"I do doubt how many of you are willing to try and understand the position of those that you oppose."
More crystal ball action here?
The whole reason we care about the marriage debate is because we have looked at your philosophy and have rejected it. It is not good or healthy for society. You can have many sad stories, but I have many sad stories too, everyone does, welcome to the human race. The fact that you know sad stories doesn't mean your political ideas are right. Sad stories don't make good policy decisions just because they're sad. There are many good ways to address a problem. I just happen to disagree with your particular solution.
Actually; Johan de Vries recent post is thoughtful and honest.
My household supported the expansion of civil union laws to include same-sex practitioners out of support for dear friends that counted themselves as members of said group; up until the time we realized that "civil unions" were being used as a stepping stone to the redefinition of marriage.
My dear friends turned militant the day after civil union laws were expanded in California. No longer were they simply asking for legal recourse within the constructs of their relationships; they were/are now demanding that all of society be redefined in such a way as to repudiate opposition to their activity.
I witnessed as these people encouraged their nephews to embrace same-sex activity; watched as they praised these children -11 and 12 - for declaring their sexual proclivity at a family gathering; witnessed them proudly boast about the “homosexual traits” their newborn niece was displaying before their very eyes.
No one needs to tell me what is wrong with this picture; least of all a same-sex enthusiast who sets out to prove the existence of the mythical “Gay Gene.”
"Sean, you have indeed tried to misrepresent my views. LOL. You disregard every part of the defense of marriage except your favorite parts, and then you attempt to knock those down with a good round of name calling."
I'm sorry, TC, I fail to see any of these names you're mentioning? Sean has actually presnted a pleasant and innocent question, which you have failed to answer. You've just accused him of doing something you THINK all SSM supporters do; like you only read what you wanted to read. I think his question deserves an answer.
I haven't even discussed your argument, I stated it was faith based rather than logic based arguments that are causing people to ignore you. I didn't actually go into what your arguments were.
Nor did I "name call" I used both the sides names, and even used the word bad in quotes to show I meant it as an abstract concept.
I was trying to explain why people think it's okay to ignore you, I even start with saying your opinions should be discussable.
When I'm not trying to discuss the ssm position, and instead discuss why I think something is happening, I thought this would be a neutral point, that you would say "actually we think our points are logic based" or "gee, I never thought of it like that". Not accusing me of attacking your position when I'm trying to discuss something different.
It doesn't always have to be about SSM.
Eric, No matter how pleasant he was in misconstruing marriage arguments, misconstrue them still he did. To deny that there is any reason to reject your philosophy except on a religious basis is the tired old dog of the LGBT establishment, and is code language for "You're too bigoted to see anything else." I may be wrong, but I have never seen NOM quote scripture. Sean's comment has no basis in fact, only his own bias.
Also the "gay gene" idea is gone - most scientists belive that although being gay is innate, there is no evidence for a on/off gay gene, a gene might make it more likely, but there isn't currently evidence for that. Scientists believe being gay has something to do with hormone levels during pregnancy, they believe this because having more older brothers increases the likelihood a son will be gay, which got them into thinking about womb hormones, and checking other factors that measure this. Studies are going on now about this.
Next, most people in mental health, and medicine believe that same sex attraction is innate, although bi people exist, their sexual attraction is also innate (they can't stop being bi by marrying a women and being monogamous, but they can "identify" as being straight), I understand the evidence currently laid out my not be enough for the people here, but honestly, that is okay because even we don't 100% know what causes gayness. We "know" (I use quotes to avoid offence here) that gayness is innate because a proportion of us try to change, and are unable, and because ex-gay therapies, when tested, do not seem to work in the long term.
If you have a study that proves ex-gay therapy, feel free to share it, I promise to read it as I would any other scientific study, and if it meets the same standard, I would be forced to accept the conclusion.
"There are mountains of studies showing that children need a mother and a father, and that families do best with a mom and a dad."
Yet there are also plenty of studies which show that children are no worse when raised by gay parents. Like I said, for every research ssm opponents bring up, there is at least another one saying otherwise. And that is the whole point I am trying to make. At the very least the issue is inconclusive, but each side can point out studies to claim they are right. But it may very well be the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
"Can you show a single society which has embraced ssm and thrived long term?"
Nope, I cannot. On the other hand, can you name a single society that has fallen due to marriage related issues? I never have claimed that opposite-sex marriage doesn't work. But it doesn't mean that allowing same-sex couples to wed by definition means the end of marriage. So far, any attempts I have seen by ssm opponents to make that point are driven by gut feelings, rather than facts.
More crystal ball action here?
Nope, and I am not quite sure how you made that so. All I was wondering is how many people that oppose ssm do so after looking at both sides. That is a fair question. If you yourself have done so and you still reject the ssm proponents position, I may disagree, but I would appreciate the effort. But let's be honest, the vast majority of people don't research subjects very well before forming an opinion.
Also, sad stories don't necessarilly make me right, I agree with that. But it doesn't make me necessarilly wrong either. But they are important, because for better or worse, they do help in making people think about issues. It is not uncommon for example for parents that initially oppose homosexuality to turn around or at least become more understanding when their child comes out to them.
Sean, I understand that same sex attraction is a difficult thing, but knowing what causes gayness although quite interesting to me as a side note, really doesn't have anything to do with redefining marriage. I will, for the sake of argument, agree with you that 1. Having same sex attraction is difficult and 2. For many with same sex attraction, the attraction is not chosen. Is it your position then that same sex attraction is an immutable quality akin to race?
Not trying to answer for Sean here. But as a gay man myself, I would like to submit that I (and any gay person I personally know) would agree that in my own opinion same sex attraction is immutable. That said, I cannot and will not speculate on the position or reasoning of ex-gays.
@TC Yes that is my position. Obviously the rights of different races is a very different fight, gay people have never been slaves, and outright government sponsored oppression seems unlikely. But superficially, they are similar fights.
Johan, it's not tit for tat on the studies. The field of pro-ssm data is nearly exclusively done by people with an opinion on the matter, and the scientific practices used to obtain that data are inherently weak, relying heavily on self reported data rather than objective data. If I wanted studies that showed the importance of gender, I could find those outside the ssm realm. I cannot find studies like that on the other side. There are none.
"can you name a single society that has fallen due to marriage related issues?"
Marriage and the family are the most basic building blocks of society. If you weaken marriage, you weaken family and the consequences trickle outward from there. Strong societies are built on strong families. Science shows that strong families are built on the nuclear model. Societal corruption is a process, and marriage corruption is just another step in that process. There are many societies that have fallen from societal corruption from within rather than militant force from without.
"I never have claimed that opposite-sex marriage doesn't work. But it doesn't mean that allowing same-sex couples to wed by definition means the end of marriage."
No one I know is claiming ssm means the end of marriage. What we are claiming is that redefining marriage weakens it, and stemming from and leading to increased societal corruption. (i.e. the over-inflated importance of self rather than good)
"how many people that oppose ssm do so after looking at both sides. That is a fair question. If you yourself have done so and you still reject the ssm proponents position, I may disagree, but I would appreciate the effort. But let's be honest, the vast majority of people don't research subjects very well before forming an opinion."
The presumption here stinks. No one who has debated same sex marriage on these boards has done so without looking into the subject, often deeply. To have the audacity to suggest otherwise smacks of the same tired old LGBT rhetoric that "there is no reasoned opposition to ssm but bigotry". The reality is that you and I both have philosophies on life, society and our beliefs. You believe what you believe same as anyone else. For one entire side of the argument to dismiss the other entire side of the argument because they are acting in concert with their beliefs is not in itself a thoughtful challenge to the basis on which those beliefs rest. Some marriage supporters believe in God, and because they believe in God they accept that what God teaches is right and what is right is naturally evidenced by good fruit, or outcomes to actions. Others believe in common sense, being evidenced by good fruit, or outcomes to actions. Whether you believe in God or not, marriage supporters see and believe in the relationship between children, families and healthy society that the institution of marriage supports. History, science, common sense, mother nature, all these things support the relationship between children, families and healthy society that marriage supports.
What have you got to rest your arguments on? Belief that gender doesn't matter? Belief that you should have societal approval for your desires and actions regardless of the benefit they provide?
And which side is it again that is based on faith? True faith has good fruit. False faith does not.
Johan and Sean, I disagree with the position that same sex attraction is an immutable trait akin to race. I believe it is more akin to a propensity to alcoholism or any other genetically/behaviorally linked circumstance. Many people can choose to behave in homosexual ways, and then change their minds later, and vice versa. The underlying feelings for some do not change, but may drift over time, however I do believe that for some they can change completely. This is not something that is possible with a truly immutable trait such as you would see in race.
Because homosexuality is not an immutable trait, I do not treat same sex attraction the same as race. I do not see those who have same sex attraction as a separate "people", though I know LGBT culture encourages the separation. I choose to see us all as individuals with choices.
TC Matthews, I am going to stop discussing the research on ssm and children. It is going to be an endless debate where I don't see any consensus coming from. Can we agree on that?
I would like to respond the last part of your reply, by submitting that my presumption does not stink. It may have been worded poorly though. There is no doubt in my mind that the participants on this blog have done their homework, and if you understood that to be so, than I apologize for not being clear enough. My point was that while some people do look at both sides (that would be the people on this blog for example), the vast silent majority does not. They often base their opinion on what they happen to view or read in the media. That is not specific to ssm, but on almost all things. And in this case it goes both for sides of the ssm debate.
It is unfortunate that a lot of posts of mine are never posted, as you would have found that you and I don't differ all that much on "dismiss[ing] the other entire side of the argument". My views on NOM, the ssm debate, religion and all these things are a mix of things that gay supporters might say, as well as gay opponents might say. I will always respect someone else's opinon, no matter how much I disagree with it. But I do believe that if those opinions clash, people have the right to verbally object to that in a civil manner.
What have you got to rest your arguments on? Belief that gender doesn't matter? Belief that you should have societal approval for your desires and actions regardless of the benefit they provide?
Actually, I do have societal approval. I am lucky enough to live in a country where almost nine out of ten people don't care all that much if you are gay or are married to a same-sex partner. It doesn't mean all is great though. Even with the support we have here, there is still lots of work to be done.
Just to clarify. I am not saying that same sex attraction is immutable, but rather that based on personal feelings I cannot for the life of me see it happen.
TC Matthews, Canada has had same sex marriage for several years now, as has Massachussetts. What bad fruit has come about because of same sex marriage?
Johan, you seem like a nice guy, but I am beginning to wonder if it is not you who have neglected to fully understand the opposition's position.
I laid out my support for the definition of marriage as being supported by "Science, history, social science and good old common sense ". May I sum up your response?
Science:
Men and women have a unique relationship in that their union has the potential to create life. (I don't think you responded to this one)
Social Science:
The best way to encourage responsible procreation is through marriage because kids do best with a mom and a dad, dedicated to each other and their children for life. (your response: Studies are ambiguous and conflicting within the marriage debate circles) (my response: not all supporting studies originate from the marriage debate arena, choose studies outside that arena if you are concerned about bias. Regardless, the conclusions are overwhelmingly supportive of marriage between a man and a woman.)
History:
Through thousands of independently evolving societies, no society that has embraced SSM has been long lasting. (your response: Marriage doesn't destroy societies directly) (my response: Healthy marriages make healthy families and families are the root and basis of a healthy society. Societal corruption encourages the deterioration of marriage and family and the deterioration of marriage and family foments the further corruption of society. Many societies have been destroyed from corruption within rather than by force from without.)
You and Sean both intimated that there is no reasonable debate to be had, since the pro-marriage side is simply based on "faith" and not logic and that we ought to have logic if we were to be engaged and not ignored. I have here laid out my case, as it was from my first post, and clarified it. Do you have an argument against it? If not, perhaps it is your side that is based on "faith" in the LGBT dogma? Or that has not taken the time to truly understand the position of your opposition?
If you are truly the honest people that you seem, I look forward to discussing these issues at length with you. It is not enough to come here, intimate that there is no discussion based on logic (hopefully not implying that no logic can be had because we're all just simple bigots) and then when logical discussion begins to beg off saying we'll have to agree to disagree.
Allright TC Matthews, let me respond to your post #33. That'll be my last post for today. I'd be happy to continue tomorrow though if needed.
Science:
Men and women have a unique relationship in that their union has the potential to create life.
I agree with you that a male-female is the only way where a couple can naturally produce offspring. However, relations with natural offspring are just one of several scenarios. Other scenarios include adopted children and children from a previous relationship. These two scenarios apply to both straight and gay couples and already exist.
Gay couples exist, and a number of those gay couples raise children. There is no law against that. In my opinion, marriage would tremendously help those children, because their parents have more securities from government in case one of the parents dies for example.
Social science:
Regardless, the conclusions are overwhelmingly supportive of marriage between a man and a woman.
And that is where we have conflicting opinions. There are most certainly studies that conclude that kids from gay parents are just as healthy, happy and smart as kids from heterosexual couples. The main conclusion in at least one of those studies is that the gender of the parents is not as important, but rather that the kids have parents that love them.
This exact issue has also been brought up during the Prop 8 trial, and the overall conclusions are the same. If ever there was a moment to bring up undeniable evidence to the contrary, that would have been it. However, in my opinion, the evidence presented did not even remotely refute the conclusions. For what it's worth, someone I know personally (straight), was raised by gay parents. She told me she had a wonderful youth, has plenty of friends and she attended university. Sure, it is just one story, but by far she is not the only one to say so.
History:
I happily agree that healthy families are important for society. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to suggest that same-sex marriages contribute to societal corruption because they cannot form healthy families. I disagree on that and refer back to what I said above under the social science topic.
If not, perhaps it is your side that is based on "faith" in the LGBT dogma? Or that has not taken the time to truly understand the position of your opposition?
As a gay man, it would be ignorant to say that there is no natural bias. But as a presumably religious person yourself, it can equally be argued that you have a biblically based bias. However, I feel confident in saying that I know enough about the topic have an informed opinion and stand by my view that same-sex marriage does not hurt society in any way. And as much as you might feel it is a cop-out, I doubt there is much of a point in bringin up research (or logic) again. All of the talking points have come by on this blog since it started, and I'm not sure what you expect me to add to it.
Finally let me stress again that, unlike some gay people, I do not consider NOM a hate group, nor their supporters bigots. I just think you are incorrect.
The existence of SSM is itself a harm to any society in which it is found,and as a non-religious opponent of SSM I consider the institution of civil marriage (the only kind into which I could enter in good conscience) to have lost ALL worth anywhere SSM is legal,because its being exclusively opposite-sex constitutes its sole use to society.
Whether or not same-sex attraction is innate,"being gay" is ALWAYS a choice and can NEVER be defended,because it involves wrongly believing same-sex attraction should ever be gratified.Persons afflicted by SSA who know better than to indulge it don't associate themselves with the unrepentantly "gay" (except the happy).
Johan,
Men and women are different, they have different outsides and different insides. Each gender has something unique to give the next generation and the best way to pass that on is through proper modeling, best taught through marriage and families. While there are other ways to raise children, science shows that the best way to raise a child is with the biological parents, dedicated to each other and their children for life. This is the gold standard, so to speak, of relationships for children. SSM advocates often say that not everyone is like that, and your position is similar. While it's true that not every family is like that, death, divorce, tragedy come into the picture as well as the rise of single motherhood and the necessity of adoption in some cases, and the continuum goes on, but the gist of it is that we know what the gold standard looks like, and if society were to advance, promote etc, any standard, it ought to be the best.
"Gay couples exist, and a number of those gay couples raise children. There is no law against that. In my opinion, marriage would tremendously help those children, because their parents have more securities from government in case one of the parents dies for example."
There is no law against acceptable families that do not meet the ideal, however, I am against holding up single motherhood for example, and saying that is equal to marriage, just like I wouldn't hold up a grandma and grandpa raising grandkids as children and say that was the ideal we should strive for. Is it adequate? The best we can do given the circumstances? Yes. Encouraging SSM, giving SSM the same legal and social status as marriage changes the societal standard. Gay couples exist yes. Can they raise children? Yes, of course. Can those children turn out well? Yes they can. Is it best? Not if it denies a child a mother or father by design. What nature provides for by design cannot be replicated any other way with the same efficacy. Lots of familial variations exist because of death, divorce, and other arrangements. We live in a human, imperfect world, but that doesn't mean we can't have societal standards to strive for in trying to provide society's future with the best possible scenarios.
Johann,
"I happily agree that healthy families are important for society. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to suggest that same-sex marriages contribute to societal corruption because they cannot form healthy families."
Whether I think same sex couples are a healthy environment for children is a moot point since law is not formed based on what I think but rather on what is demonstrably best for society. What contributes to societal corruption is taking the gold standard of marriage and changing it. Redefining marriage from an institution that encourages responsible procreation to an institution set up simply to get government benefits and society's stamp of approval is a major change. That view shift has consequences.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/
This essay by a writer pen named Jane Galt is excellent and describes this idea far better than I can.
If you are concerned about gay rights, benefits, etc, I have no issue with that. Personally I support Reciprocal Benefits legislation that fills in those loopholes and areas without setting up pseudo marriage situations.
"As a gay man, it would be ignorant to say that there is no natural bias. But as a presumably religious person yourself, it can equally be argued that you have a biblically based bias. However, I feel confident in saying that I know enough about the topic have an informed opinion and stand by my view that same-sex marriage does not hurt society in any way. And as much as you might feel it is a cop-out, I doubt there is much of a point in bringin up research (or logic) again. All of the talking points have come by on this blog since it started, and I'm not sure what you expect me to add to it."
I'm not talking about natural bias really, what I meant was the idea that there were no logical or reasonable arguments for marriage except religious ones. That is the view I was responding to. It is extremely common for LGBT activists to come on here with big starry eyes, imagining that truly, there are no arguments in support of marriage, which only serves to make them look ignorant because these arguments are the bulk of what NOM, Jennifer Roback Morse, United Families International and other groups have been broadcasting for years. You have to be willfully ignorant to believe that, but it sure is handy when pigeonholing your opposition as ignorant bigots.... Only people who are religious believe that rot right? Whether I'm religious or not matters about as much as asking if you're gay or not. It doesn't matter one iota. The arguments are there, clearly laid out. The LGBT lobby just doesn't have a good answer for them.
To TC: You are doing a great job in articulating your posts. One point I would like to make to you and to all other NOM supporters. This maybe the same Sean that shows up on the Ruth Institute blogs. On her blogs no matter how many times we disprove his SSM arguments he just rejects them as if he was a member of a religious cult. It should be noted that the majority of well articulated arguments against SSM on that website are not based on religious arguments.
I would urge any of my fellow NOM supporters to see some of Sean's luicrious posts on that website so that you know what you are up against.
For those of you who have read post #32, please go to the Massresistance website for all of the proofs of the harm that SSM has brought to society in Massachusetts.
" Adriana T: Canada has had same sex marriage for several years now, as has Massachussetts. What bad fruit has come about because of same sex marriage?"
At what age do they start sex education in those places?
Mary Ann
Posted August 1, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the encouragement Mary Ann.
I also think your post, "You can disagree with SSM all you want. But never in public" could win a slogan contest!
Bman: I second that and agree with Mary Ann. I too love your posts. I miss you over at the Ruth Institute.
The Ruth Institute Sean is not me, I thought I ought to come and clear that up. Sorry I stopped debating with you, being misunderstood (my initial argument, not subsequent ones) was winding me up and I didn't want to be angry online, especially when it was probably my own fault my point was seen as an attack on anti-marriage equality people, rather than a critique of the way the argument was conveyed. But I'm back now, and will be updating on other posts.