Tomorrow, Wednesday June 3 at 4:00 PM, another important bill is coming before the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee. Bill Number 5926 would pave the way for the Rhode Island Family Court to issue divorce decrees in the case of same-sex marriages performed in other states. The bill states,
"Regardless of whether the parties would have been eligible to marry in Rhode Island, the parties to any marriage, or other domestic relationship granting substantially similar rights and obligations of marriage, recognized in any state of the United States, possession of the United States, or in any foreign country, may petition for a divorce proceeding in this state so long as the parties meet the jurisdictional requirements of section 15-5-12."
Note the important word "any" throughout the bill. Any marriage from any location will be recognized in Rhode Island for the purposes of divorce. This is one very small step away from any marriage being recognized in Rhode Island period, and it is a clear step the Same-Sex Marriage movement wants to take. If same-sex divorce is approved it will not be long before same-sex marriage is approved.
We need to have your voices heard: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Rhode Island must not recognize "any marriage" from "any place" unless it is between a man and a woman.
The National Organization for Marriage--Rhode Island's position is simple. First, to recognize a same-sex marriage for purposes of divorce is to recognize same-sex marriage period, something Rhode Island law prohibits. To take this step is to move ever closer to legalizing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. Next, proponents of this bill will claim because they live in Rhode Island they have no recourse to end their unhappy "marriages." This is not true. These couples went to other States to get married and they can, as hard as it may be, go back to these States for their divorce. To claim they are stuck in legal limbo is a fallacy. Finally, Rhode Island should not be amending its laws to solve a problem created by Massachusetts or any other State. Those States amended their marriage laws, they can amend their divorce laws to fix this issue.
NOM - RI urges you to come out the State House, Room 313 Wednesday June 3rd at 4:00 PM, and make your voice heard. Marriage is between a man and a woman! Rhode Island must not take any action to recognize any other type of "marriage" from any other place unless it is between a man and a woman.
If you can't come out to the hearing please contact the House Judiciary Committee by email here.
124 Comments
Let me get this straight. NOM is against same-sex marriage, but it doesn't want to facilitate the dissolution of same-sex marriages by allowing states, even states that don't themselves offer SSM, to grant a divorce the SSM couples? I would think they would be in favor of all 50 states granting SSM couples quick and easy divorces!
Jeffrey, you're not paying attention, read it again! Duh... for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
@Jeffrey as it notes in the article, legalizing SSM divorces would simply add weight to the view that a SSM is a legitimate union between two consenting adults.
As a society, we choose which values we as a society want to live by. Every law is based on someone's view of right and wrong. Someones view of morality will be enforced. Non-religion is only another kind of religion.
As the law stands now, everyone has equal rights. Any man can marry any woman he chooses (if she will have him!)
The union of two different people--that's what marriage is. Anything else (the union of two same people, the union of many people) is something different and has (or should have) a different name. There are two kinds of people in this world: men and women. Marriage is what bridges the divide.
"...Gay couples can already do everything married people do--express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs--from wedding cakes to honeymoons--of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.
Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone--of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference--from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
And respect is precisely what homosexual activists long for, as one newly licensed lesbian spouse makes clear: "It was a moving experience after a truly lifelong commitment, to have a government entity say, ‘Your relationship is valid and important in the eyes of the law.’" Another admits, "This is about other people recognizing what we have already recognized with each other for a long time." And another: "I didn’t start out feeling this way, but that piece of paper, it’s just so important I can’t even put it into words. It’s so important to have society support you….It’s about society saying you’re recognized as a couple."
Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the "piece of paper." Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy..."--Gregory Koukl
JeremiahA: Denying marriage doesn’t restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
And thus we see the true driving motive behind the opposition. No way, no how will it allow homosexuality to be considered respectful, legitimate or on an equal moral footing with heterosexuality.
I mean come on, take the gloves off here and let's just be honest. All these semantic word games, the laying of logic traps, the spinning of "meaning" and cries of "protect the children" are just all ploys to find some way, any way to prevent gays from gaining respect and legitimacy.
People are equal, not people's actions. If I choose to smoke, should I demand that everyone consider smoking the same as non smoking? Regardless of the consequences to myself and society?
Smokers worldwide have had their alternative lifestyles repeatedly maligned by news media, government agencies, and stubbornly persistent facts. These hateful smokerphobes have gone too far. Rather than promoting tolerance and diversity, schools are being used to discourage the use of tobacco through scare tactics.
The following is an example of the kinds of truths flagrantly taught in schools and by multiple government agencies:
* Chemicals in tobacco cause damage to the macula (the most sensitive part of the retina, the back of the eye).
* Smoking is a risk factor for all cancers associated with the larynx, oral cavity and esophagus.
* Heavy smokers have laryngeal cancer mortality risks 20 to 30 times greater than non-smokers.
* Nicotine causes blood vessels to constrict which causes the blood pressure rise and strain is put on the heart.
* The carbon monoxide in cigarettes depletes the oxygen carrying capacity of a smoker’s blood so that the heart has to pump harder to get enough oxygen to the rest of the body.
* Smoking increases blood cholesterol and fibrinogen levels which cause the blood to clot more easily and this will increase the risk of having a heart attack, caused by a blood clot forming in the heart.
* The tar content of cigarette smoke damages the cells in the airways of the lung, making the cilia unable to sweep away the harmful substances.
* Harmful substances from the smoke are detected by the protective cells of the body and these cells move to the lung and try to defend it, but are destroyed by the cigarette smoke. The dead cells release substances that damage the structure of the lung, which leads to chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
* Tobacco accounts for more than 80% of the lung cancer cases.
* The overall relative risk of stroke in smokers being about 1.5times that of non-smokers
* Smoking has been shown to contribute to such common disorders as heartburn and peptic ulcers. It also increases the risk of Crohn’s disease and possibly gallstones.
* Nearly 50% of the bladder and kidney cancer in men are caused by smoking.
* Approximately 30% of all deaths from pancreatic cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking.
* Smokers get more and deeper wrinkles all over their faces because nicotine constricts the tiny capillaries that nourish the skin.
* Men who smoke are twice as likely to become bald as are men who do not smoke, and premature graying is 3 to 6 times more common in smokers.
* Smoking delays the healing of fractures, and in some smokers bone healing is indefinitely delayed.
* Smokers are at a much higher risk of developing osteoporosis.
* Smokers also have poorer muscle strength, agility and balance.
Source: http://mens-health.health-cares.net/smoking-harms.php
Multiple supposedly “neutral” and “scientific” sources are cited. The biased and hateful authors of these sources and the people who teach these things apparently do not consider the feelings of people who smoke before discouraging our younger generation from following in their footsteps.
It’s Smokerphobia and it’s got to stop! Smokers are people too!
To add insult to injury, many offer stop smoking programs as if they had the right to tell people who smoke that their lifestyle choice was less than their own.
“Certain Gene Found to Influence Why People Start Smoking and Why Some Get Addicted and Others Don’t” —APA
Few people recognize that smokers are “born that way” and there is scientific proof for the genetic propensity for smoking. Information published by the APA about the genetic links to smoking are consistently ignored.
Source: http://www.apa.org/releases/smoke99.html
Ok Ok Ok…… So at what point do we draw the line?
There is obviously a huge difference between educating people about the very real consequences of smoking and hating smokers. Hopefully we can all see that being an educator that teaches that there are consequences to smoking does not automatically make that person a “smokerphobe” who hates smokers and wants to prevent them from enjoying the freedom to smoke.
There are very real consequences to homosexual behavior. Educating about those consequences is not the mark of a bigot, a hater, or even a homophobe.
Anyone who would deprive a child of his Father, simply because of their own bias against men, will not likely earn my respect Marie.
Gloves off.
Marty, can I presume you also want to outlaw single motherhood? Divorce? Widowhood? All can deprive a child of a normal relationship with a father.
Death and divorce are things we work around in society, necessary evils. No one holds up a child who has suffered the death of a parent or a divorce and says this is the way it ought to be. Only in gay relationships are we supposed to celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness.
Did NOM miss this???
"In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to vote Wednesday on a bill that would force health insurers to provide infertility treatment to unmarried people and gay couples, a proxy in the larger fight over gay marriage."
"Denying marriage doesn’t restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it."
This is flagrantly untrue. Denying marriage means denying same-sex couples the right to freely enter contracts, to leave their estates to whom they wish, to have the person they love included on their health insurance.
There was a case--I don't have my law-books with me, but I can look it up later--in which a gay man's family completely cut him off when he came out to them. No contact, nothing, for decades. He wasn't even told that his mother had died. For the last thirty years of his life, he lived with his gay partner. They lived together essentially as a married couple.
When he died, his family contested his will, in which he left everything to his partner. A minor technical defect was found in the will (as you can find in most any will if you look hard enough), and his partner got nothing while his family, who had treated him so hatefully for so long, got his entire estate. This was all completely legal. I wish I could cite the specific case, but it's irrelevant, really; this is what the current law permits.
Does that seem like justice to any of you? Regardless of your feelings about homosexuality, should a family who have disowned their own flesh and blood have greater standing in the eyes of the law than the partner who loved him and supported him through the decades? Personally, I think it's abominable.
To oppose same-sex marriage is to say that some 10% to 15% of the adult population should be denied the right to freely enter contracts--one of the most fundamental and necessary freedoms in a functional society--simply because of the type of person to whom they are attracted.
If that seems reasonable and good to you, then I hope you don't vote.
beetlebabee: People are equal, not people’s actions. If I choose to smoke, should I demand that everyone consider smoking the same as non smoking? Regardless of the consequences to myself and society?
I don't see any noteworthy differences between the consequences of same-sex intimate partners marrying versus opposite-sex partners.
In fact, most of the "complaints" people have about gays (promiscuity, spread of STDs and HIV, etc.) would be REDUCED if we encourage them to marry.
Isn't that what we want?
"Gays are destructive and spread STDs"
"OK, so let's encourage them to marry to reduce that."
"No we can't, because they're destructive and spread STDs"
I mean that's pretty much the "logic" I see here.
Beetlebabee: Heterosexual smokers CAN marry - are you saying should we prevent them? A word of advice: comparison gay Americans to cancer, diseases, bestiality, pedophiles, polygamists etc. is eroding your argument in the minds of fair-minded Americans. If you want to denigrate gay people, come out with it properly. Ridiculous, childlike and inappropriate analogies don't make you look anywhere near as clever, sophisticated or convincing as you think.
Ah Marie, but you forget, in places where marriage is legally neutered, these statistics have not improved. Calling gay relationships "marriage" does not change that.
Andy, Calling people who disagree with you names and impugning their motives is a popular but invalid tactic. Take the logic that opposition to action = hate and apply it to any other situation. It quickly becomes obvious that the logic doesn't hold.
"I don’t see any noteworthy differences between the consequences of same-sex intimate partners marrying versus opposite-sex partners."
That just shows your unwillingness to look at undisputed health facts regarding homosexual lifestyle choices.
First of all, congratulations New Hampshire for passing marriage equality this afternoon.
Beetlebabee, I did not call YOU 'names' - I used strong adjectives to describe your 'analogies' and suggested that these tactics were not as effective or developed as the length of your cut/paste post on smoking would suggest you think they are. It's ironic when you speak of 'logic', yet profer some of the least logical arguments and comparisons of any post on this site. Just explain one thing - if smoking is analagous to being gay (which, of course, it is not), then should be ban all smokers who marry, just gay smokers who marry, or outlaw smoking altogether? If we decide on outlawing smoking, how does this translate to gay people - do we, say, move toward an Iranian-style model of making it illegal and executing violators?
Andy, I never claimed you called names. I was responding to Marie's claims.
However, since you brought it up, how is homosexuality different than smoking? or alcoholism?
Andy,
A word of advice: comparison gay Americans to cancer, diseases, bestiality, pedophiles, polygamists etc.
A bit of advice, your chip on your shoulder is falling off on its own.
Beetle discussed arguments associated with both, not comparing them directly.
On Lawn: for “Beetle’s” arguments to be valid, gay people need to be directly comparable to the list of unpleasantries s/he reels off.
The only comparison is the risk involved. Something that Marie has been noting, without any balk from you...
She said...
“Gays are destructive and spread STDs”
The fact that STD's are spread by gays is as much a cold medical fact as smoking has health risks.
stick to commentary on gay people when discussing gay people and their rights
To be honest, I rather stick to commentary on what marriage is when discussing marriage. Homosexuality, for its noble and risky elements, is simply not a marriage. Nor does it need to be.
What needs to be a marriage is where the rights of everyone need to be recognized in the human mating practice. That includes the man, the woman, and the child they have the potential to create.
Gay rights is an important discussion, just a separate one.
Beetle noted that Massachusetts has not seen a reduction in STD for years of having neutered marriage. Also, it seems the dismally low participation rates show that whatever value monogomy has in these relationships is being shunned. In fact, it looks as if monogamy is being re-defined just like marriage.
So if Marie is worried about monogamy, she would do well to pin marriage to something where monogamy has a real life correlation -- having one partner for life for the sake of the children you share together. Otherwise marriage's monogamy might be removed as an expectation entirely.
As a homosexual I can most certainly assure you that I was never given a choice.
How sad. Truly, my heart and best wishes go out to you.
However, nothing Beetle said requires homosexuality to be a choice.
Couldn’t have said it any better.
From the AP article at yahoo.com:
"If you have no choice as to your sex, male or female; if you have no choice as to your color; if you have no choice as to your sexual orientation; then you have to be protected and given the same opportunity for life, liberty and happiness," Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, said during the hourlong debate.
“Lynch, a Democrat, personally opposes gay marriage but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."”
Wow. So the governor of New Hamphire is happy to have a personal view of same-sex marriage, and presumably only engage in opposite-sex marriage himself, but he realizes that other people might feel differently, with no impact on his own life??? That is soooooooooo cool!
[...]he realizes that other people might feel differently, with no impact on his own life??? That is soooooooooo cool!
How sad, really. Especially as governor you'd expect him to be considering how things impact the state, not just his own life.
Neutering marriage does no one any good, especially the people who buy into the new model of marriage.
Of course a good argument for Reciprocal Beneficiaries might be made, but nothing about homosexuality that I've seen justifies the violence they wish to do to marriage itself.
Why go to the trouble of creating something called Reciprocal Beneficiaries when a perfectly good set of rules and regulations exists in marriage statutes!
Oh great. So you are fighting for presumed paternity now? Oh, how about the whole "husband and wife" thing on the certificates. The number of changes required to accommodate marriage being neutered are vast and complex.
On the other hand, many different relationships can be well suited with recognition and benefits. Just not all of them with the same name.
Its like saying sweatpants will make car travel safer if we call them seatbelts.
"Its like saying sweatpants will make car travel safer if we call them seatbelts."
LOL. I love you guys! Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else, is everything else.
To bettle and lawn,
I'd love to meet the person who preprogrammed you to think, "nothing about homosexuality that I’ve seen justifies the violence they wish to do to marriage itself." Is this because you are actually that short sighted and narrow minded by choice or by chemical imbalance? Or is it because communicating this makes you feel better about yourself by acknowledging, to those of us who are in fact able to see through your words, that you see homosexuals as somehow deserving of your regurgitated, generalized, ignorant statements of how we should be relegated to the status of not able to marry because we are disease spreaders? WOW! Are you really that ignorant to have comminucated this? WOW! I hope you get an award of some sort for such an original tantamount idea. As if heterosexuals are immune to STD's and can't transmiss them-no matter how hard they try.
This statement: "Neutering marriage does no one any good, especially the people who buy into the new model of marriage."
Is totally undone by the first idea in the very next one: "Of course a good argument for Reciprocal Beneficiaries might be made,"
Your own words are biting you in your own ass. Or you are flexible enough to go down on your own entire foot.
I will proceed to call beetle and lawn names, etc. that are NOT derogatory and do in fact apply difinatively:
haters, prejudiced, ignorant, homophobic, insecure, fearfull, unable to think for themselves, betterosexuals-because you have attempted to tell us homosexual disease spreaders we don't deserve equality, haterosexuals, bigots.
I don't have enough time in my whole life to expose the ugly reality of you two, but let me tell you what I do have time for: talking with both of you in person-since you clearly aren't as evolved as many of the adults in this world, I'd be more than happy to shoulder the handicap just to speak with you two for eight hours, because that's how long this would take-at least. This, of course, is if you really think you could stand up for what you have communicated in here with a "real" homosexual right in front of you. I'm in KCMO, where are you two? My partner and I don't have kids, so I have the money to travel. Do you really think your ideas would hold up to the good old sink or swim test?
Mark my words: there will come a day soon when the ideas you have reiterated in this comment post will be seen by the LAW, and not only educated adults, as harassment, slander, et. punishable by law, you weak minded ignorant fools-which is perfectly accurate.
I feel like a parent who wants to spank their child so the child associates pain with the wrong its done. Good old empathy and sympathy. You have none, and I would be more than happy to help instill some for you.
What fun!
I think its been a few hours since I've been entertained thus.
I mean look at this rich insinuation and overt accusations....
- I’d love to meet the person who preprogrammed you [...]
- you are actually that short sighted and narrow minded by choice or by chemical imbalance
- Are you really that ignorant to have comminucated this
- I hope you get an award of some sort for such an original tantamount idea.
Not very informative, but I just wanted to pause and note...
As if heterosexuals are immune to STD’s and can’t transmiss them-no matter how hard they try.
I think you meant "transmit". And yes heterosexuals do transmit STD's. Even celibates transmit all sorts of diseases, just not STD's. And some STD's are more conducive to homosexual activity than heterosexual.
Its a good argument for general public health, alright.
I will proceed to call beetle and lawn names, etc. [...]
Good on ya mate! That was truly a display of wit and good ol' sophomoric fun.
I'll take a break and add some substance...
This statement: “Neutering marriage does no one any good, especially the people who buy into the new model of marriage.”
Is totally undone by the first idea in the very next one: “Of course a good argument for Reciprocal Beneficiaries might be made,”
Its not my habit to try to make people's arguments for them. You never did really explain how the first phrase was undone by the latter. I can only speculate.
But in general what I state is that marriage is meant to promote something humanitarian, something good for everyone. Removing that opens up everyone to additional risk.
It also hurts people who never really grasp the value of marriage in the first place, and settle for the neutered version. If I gave you sugar water to use as bug repellent, the more you convinced yourself that it was bug repellent the more you'd get bitten. Sugar water, like RB's, have value. Just not the same value as marriage, and winds up being a disastrous substitute.
Mark my words: there will come a day soon when the ideas you have reiterated in this comment post will be seen by the LAW, and not only educated adults, as harassment, slander, et. punishable by law, you weak minded ignorant fools-which is perfectly accurate.
And some wonder why I say that neutering marriage will wind up being seen as one of the most oppressive things one group of society has done to another.
Folks, here's David. Either a troll sent by NOM to show just the kind of intollerance, bigotry and hatred they warn in their commercials. Or, he is sincere in his fascism.
You decide that for yourselves.
My name is David. I work out, frequently and I'm really strong. I live in Roeland Park, KS. Where do you live? Scared yet? How would you feel if I put you through the pain Matthew Shepherd experienced? You would think I wasn't a nice person, wouldn't you?
Do you have the guts [...]
What would I have to be afraid of, David?
You don't have the guts to say these hatefull things to my face for fear of the court case.
"Your honor, I just told him he couldn't possibly promote something humanitarian or good for everyone because he's a homosexual and told him he shouldn't be allowed to get married because everyone knows those homos spread disease, and the next thing I knew I woke up and had blood running down my nose and had a really bad headache. I was jsut expressing free speech, right?"
People tried that one years ago on African Americans. Why don't you test your theory, whatever that is, on another thirty-something minority in this country, with the same hate and ignorance and see what happens.
That is exactly what you are condoning by telling homosexuals we aren’t deserving of marriage equality and attempting to legislate as such.
Wrong, I think everyone deserves marriage equality. You are no exception.
Yet an all male or all female marriage adds to the equality of the institution of marriage like a all-white or all-black school adds to the equality of education. The freedom of association is not challenged (and is even celebrated and recognized by the government), but calling it equality is a paradox.
People tried that one years ago on African Americans.
Exactly...
"I feel like a parent who wants to spank their child so the child associates pain with the wrong its done." Actually, if this is what you think, that may explain some of your behavior. Studies have shown that spanking children doesn't teach them to associate pain with the action, but rather "Arguments are won when the big one hits the little one."
As for calling On Lawn names, that one is quite hilarious. Though I tend to disagree with NOMbla, (mostly on fear grounds), silencing someone's right to decent isn't exactly "let freedom ring." If you want equal rights, perhaps, rather than throwing a temper tantrum and insisting you get your way, you sit down and think as to WHY those rights and benefits should be yours.
Silence through intimidation is never the right way. In fact, just as I was talking to On Lawn today, violence or oppression of a voice doesn't silence as you try to, but rather has a polarizing, opposite effect. It makes people more earnest about what they believe, and more ready to go to battle to defend themselves. The true motivators of change in the civil rights movement, for example, were not the "Nation of Islam" or the "Black Panthers" but Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who organized peaceful rallies. Fight for your rights, but do so in a way that is respectful of all humanity, not just your one side.
And if Beetle is who I think she is, you can rest assured, I disagree with her PLENTY, but NEVER about her right to speech and a voice. Don't call them names, because that's just not cool, and it doesn't really help your point.
"My name is David. I work out, frequently and I’m really strong. I live in Roeland Park, KS. Where do you live? Scared yet? How would you feel if I put you through the pain Matthew Shepherd experienced? "
Really? You'd do a Matthew Shepard, You. I can't believe I just read that. You'd really say that to someone? That's a terrible thing to say, I don't care who you are.
Smokezero, well said. On Lawn, I love this:
"an all male or all female marriage adds to the equality of the institution of marriage like a all-white or all-black school adds to the equality of education."
Right on!
My name is David. I work out, frequently and I’m really strong. I live in Roeland Park, KS. Where do you live? Scared yet? How would you feel if I put you through the pain Matthew Shepherd experienced? You would think I wasn’t a nice person, wouldn’t you?>
David, let me know when I can stop laughing. Oh, that's hilarious. HILARIOUS! thank you....wait, I'm still laughing.
Jeffrey said:
“In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to vote Wednesday on a bill that would force health insurers to provide infertility treatment to unmarried people and gay couples, a proxy in the larger fight over gay marriage.”
How interesting. Now why on earth would a gay couple need fertility treatment?
Infertility is a real medical problem for thousands of people. But it's really a non-issue for a same-sex couple, now isn't it? They aren't even trying!
Seems to me that if you need a fertility specialist to help you have children, either:
1. Something is broken, or
2. You are doing it wrong!
So which is it?
Jeffrey,
Interestlingly enough, in other blog posts, you denounce divorce as one of the biggest threats to marriage (if not the biggest), yet here, you seemingly are for it. Why is that?
On Lawn,
"And yes heterosexuals do transmit STD’s. Even celibates transmit all sorts of diseases, just not STD’s. And some STD’s are more conducive to homosexual activity than heterosexual."
I'm not entirely sure how that point relates back to this article that was commented on, nor to the issue at hand, but even if it did I think it is safe to say that you are provided a loaded fact here. Are there STDs that are more conducive to homosexual activity than heterosexual? Yes. Likewise, are there STDs that are more conducive to heterosexuals than homosexuals? Yes (try finding two homosexual men who have had vaginitis). All kidding aside, the question of STDs has nothing to do with this article nor marriage. Assuming we were talking about legal marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual, I would think STDs should be an invalid part of the equation since they should have been taken care of before "marriage" was pursued. I'm not knocking you for your facts that are undoubtedly accurate, just pointing out the irrelevance and the loaded connotation of them. I would love to hear more from both sides of this issue though.
Jeffrey,
"How interesting. Now why on earth would a gay couple need fertility treatment?
Infertility is a real medical problem for thousands of people. But it’s really a non-issue for a same-sex couple, now isn’t it? They aren’t even trying!"
Jeffrey, I'm not saying this to knock your rather interesting outlook on the particular topic you commented on, I just want to clarify for you that I believe you may have had a reading comprehension malfunction. You see, in your comment you copy/pasted "'to provide infertility treatment to unmarried people and gay couples...'". I would think that if you reread this statement a few times, or maybe even one more time, you would likely be able to answer your own question. Just in case, let me set up a scenario for you to make it crystal clear. ^_^
Scenario: 1) Mary and Lindsey want to have a baby together. They are a gay couple.
2)Lindsey is an attorney and really does not desire to be the carrier of the baby, but Mary has always wanted to experience pregnancy and birth. It is decided that Mary will carry the baby.
3)Mary and her friend, Steve, attempt to create this baby (by whatever means...be it actual sex, sperm donation, turkey baster, it doesn't matter its irrelevant.). It turns out Mary is having fertility issues.
Here is the key: Mary needs fertility treatment, she and Steve are unmarried (which is one of the groups requesting in your copy/paste comment), she gets the fertility treatment and therefore benefits her gay relationship by becoming pregnant. I hope this clears up your confusion, as you should now be able to identify WHY, as you ask, a gay couple would need fertility treatment.
Sincerely hoping this scenario has aided your insight,
Concerned
Beetlebabee,
You write, "There is obviously a huge difference between educating people about the very real consequences of smoking and hating smokers. Hopefully we can all see that being an educator that teaches that there are consequences to smoking does not automatically make that person a “smokerphobe” who hates smokers and wants to prevent them from enjoying the freedom to smoke.
There are very real consequences to homosexual behavior. Educating about those consequences is not the mark of a bigot, a hater, or even a homophobe."
I could not agree with you more. Everything you have said in this statement is completely accurate. However, I'm slightly confused about where you are drawing a line of comparison between the consequences of smoking and the consequences of gay marriage. I'm not debating your point that "there are very real consequences to homosexual behavior." This is true. There are consequences to all behaviors, in fact, so the point is a bit like stating the obvious. Where your post throws me off completely from your logical argument is where you talk about the huge difference between educating people on the risks of smoking and being a "smokerphobe". This is not a logical comparison, in any stretch of the imagination, to gay marriage for the simple fact that the example you're using is something we, as a society, allow (smoking), and something we do not allow (or at least you do not want to allow, which is gay marriage). You are saying that educating people on the dangers is necessary and I AGREE WITH YOU. We do this with smoking, yet we allow it to continue even after we pursue education against it. So by your EQUAL COMPARISON, should we educate people on the dangers of homosexual marriage yet allow it to continue? How does this comparison make any sense? This argument would make a great deal of sense if we did not allow smoking (but we do), as then they would be equal comparisons as you are implying. If you would illuminate me, it would be greatly appreciated so that I can get a better understanding of your argument.
Thanks,
Concerned
No, Nicholas, I'm not for divorce. But if NOM is against SSM, it seems logical that they would favor letting same-sex married couples divorce, thus dissolving the SSM that hate.
Did beetlebabee just seriously compare homosexuality to smoking and alchoholism by saying that it was the ACT of homosexuality?
So what exactly is the act of homosexuality that is so detrimental? The sexual intercourse? Cause last time I checked--heterosexuals have a whole slew of STDs...
And let's also note that HIV, Herpes, etc are allllll readily available from heterosexual intercourse as well as homosexual. And let's also not keep going along pretending that heterosexuals don't have anal intercourse as well........
Sex is sex no matter how you slice, please don't glorify heterosexual intercourse as somehow "cleaner" or "less risky" than homosexual intercourse..or smoking for that matter.
Perry,
You've missed the point entirely.
Marriage is not a homo v hetero issue. Instilling equal recognition of rights and entitlements for everyone involved in the human mating practice is in many ways uniquely distinguished from many kinds of heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual.
"Clean" means something entirely specific to marriage. It is something entirely humanitarian in its basis of concern. And it is based on something purely scientifically based, how children are born and what responsibilities should be observed in that practice.
It's the risky lifestyle Jeffrey. Anonymous multiple partners, etc that creates the most risk in the homosexual lifestyle from what I understand of the medical reports.
On Lawn: “Clean” means something entirely specific to marriage. It is something entirely humanitarian in its basis of concern. And it is based on something purely scientifically based, how children are born and what responsibilities should be observed in that practice.
there you go again directly linking marriage and procreation, when last time I checked those were two entirely separate ideas that are not related at all.
there you go again directly linking marriage and procreation, when last time I checked those were two entirely separate ideas that are not related at all.
For you, hence why I call your marriage idea "neutered". It describes the change between the ideal we've recognized historically (as in precedent) and what you want to replace it with.
BTW, for more comparison between the two different ideals, check out this conversation Perry and I are having in a different thread...
On Lawn and Beetle,
No one has of yet addressed my threads that point out the illogical comparison betwen the dangers of smoking yet the allowance of the act and the dangers of same-sex marriage and not allowing the act. If you would read my post, I would greatly appreciate feedback. Actually if any of my points could get some feedback so that all sides could understand the other, we could be having a more meaningful discussion.
Thanks,
Concerned
"Anonymous multiple partners, etc that creates the most risk in the homosexual lifestyle from what I understand of the medical reports." A possible fix if marriage enters the equation. Marriage acts as a "stop that!" to promiscuity.
Beetle, On Lawn, and Jeffrey,
Posts 42,43, and 44 were all addressed to you specifically. I think if we can more properly establish a means of communication between intelligent blog writers, we can more effective look at all sides of the issue. If you would be so kind as to take a quick peek, I think we could really get the intellectual ball rolling and clarify the arguments.
Appreciated,
Deeply Concerned
Concerned, how does attaining a child through the use of "donor" benefit a "gay relationship"? The scenario you described is still and run around the fact that marriage unites fatherhood and motherhood whereas SSM segregates these.
Marty's remarks have not really been addressed.
marriage as a "stop that!" to promiscuity?
Monogamy even in homosexual "marriages" is statistically low, especially in male homosexual relationships. These are some quotes from researchers who asked homosexual couples about their thoughts on marriage and monogamy:
“Monogamy is a form of insecurity expressed chiefly by clutching at someone, and clutching most often leads to strangulation.”
“We were strictly monogamous for the first three years, but have included three other friends in threesomes in the past year.”
“When I begin to get emotionally involved with someone, I find it’s a good idea for me to have sex with other people so I don’t become obsessed.”
“Monogamy means having one spouse at a time, and what gays usually mean is the issue of having a lover and having sex with others. This is more appropriately labeled sexual exclusiveness or nonexclusiveness.”
“I could not be true in a monogamous contract with another gay male. Gayness and promiscuity go hand in hand, in my opinion.”
“I have sex outside the relationship, and we talk about it openly. So far it has had a positive effect.”
“I have sex with the woman I live with and with my other lover.”
“One-nighters are okay for each of us if nothing better comes along.”
“We both have sex outside of our relationship. We both feel it enriches our sex together and our own sexuality.” (pgs. 326-327)
Views On So-called Gay Marriage
“Marriage is a sham. A means for the state to intrude on private relationships. Don’t legalize gay marriage—outlaw straight marriage!”
“Marriage should be restructured and abolished by the state.”
“Marriage should be abolished.”
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/GayReport.pdf
I would dismiss these sentiments as part of the "free love" era due to the age of the report, but they've been reiterated in discussions like these too many times by homosexual activists themselves for me to personally believe these sentiments aren't still prevalent.
Concerned,
No one has of yet addressed my threads that point out the illogical comparison betwen the dangers of smoking yet the allowance of the act and the dangers of same-sex marriage and not allowing the act.
The illogical comparison I see in that statement is that a marriage is a license, a noun, and smoking is a verb, an action.
Same sex relationships are not outlawed by recognizing equal gender participation in marriage. Nor does that outlaw recognizing same-sex partnerships.
Does that address your question?
Concerned, Regarding #42 above,
I have no issue with what you said. In fact it seems to parallel my point also.
Beetlebabee, really? quoting gay people? Heterosexuals are just as sexual and promiscuous. Turn on the tv. The Bachelor, the Hills, any so called reality show.
One can say that promiscuity in gay relationships is a direct gender factor. Men have been proven to have a higher sex drive most of the time, than women. (hence why gay men are more promiscuous than say, lesbians, because there are two men involved instead of one). What makes you think straight men are LESS promiscuous than gay men?
And besides, this is completely unrelated. Marriage is about love and commitment. If we are talking promiscuity then this is a completely separate discussion based more on gender than anything else. In which case, both genders have their faults.
On Lawn,
I thought we were talking about SSM and smoking as the comparison? Now you are using same sex relationships, which was not part of the original comparison and a completely different thing than SSM. So I would have to go with an apologetic no, that does not address the question. Though your humor in the verb/noun comparison did amuse me, it was not I who originally made that statement and was instead reitterating a point made in Beetle's previous posts. To address your statement, I agree, smoking is a verb and marriage is a noun. That was also another flaw in the argument, comparing nounts and verbs. Good point! To be quite honest though, the post I was directed at you was number 42, which I believe starts with, "On Lawn," however I appreciate your opinion on all posts since you seem to have intelligent things to say which is something I greatly value in blog posting.
To Chairm, the answer to your question I would think is self evident. How does using a donor to gain a child benefit a gay relationship? I suppose the answer would be that if the point was to gain a child, gaining it through whatever means necessary would be a benefit. It would achieve the entire purpose. I would also like to explain to you that, while your views are worthy, I was addressing the question "Why would a gay couple need infertility treatment", not "how does gaining a child through a donor benefit gay relationships?" so I'm not really sure what your post is supposed to be address. I would love to hear more though!
Excited about posts,
Concerned
Perry said:
Heterosexuals are just as sexual and promiscuous. Turn on the tv. The Bachelor, the Hills, any so called reality show.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that!
Marriage is about love and commitment. If we are talking promiscuity then this is a completely separate discussion based more on gender than anything else.
Your honesty is appreciated.
It seems that neutering marriage does damage in two ways. It removes the expectation of equal gender participation in marriage, and it removes the expectation of monogamy.
I even remember a group of lesbians I discussed this topic with that called the monolithic expectation of monogamy in marriage a plague of mankind.
On Lawn,
I think you are absolutely right when you say neutering marriage removes the expectation of equal gender participation. I actually think that is a valid point that could be addressed further. However, I don't understand your second point that neutering marriage removes the expectation of monogamy? I don't think any type of marriage removes the expectation of monogamy, would that be counterproductive to the point of being married? ^_^
Sincerely,
Concerned
Deeply Concerned,
Its not as a straight forward, no. And if it weren't for seeing it come up in conversation after conversation, I wouldn't have noticed the connection either.
But now I think I have it figured out.
Monogamy, itself, is based on biology. So is promiscuity. In the evolutionary scheme of things promiscuity wins, hands down.
However, monogamy has one advantage that makes it advantageous in one particular environment, and that is where child care is required. You'll see more monogamy in species where more child care is needed.
Humans have the unique environment where we depend on our ability to pass down a vast collection of knowledge and experience, so much so that children are Dependant on their parents far longer than any other species. In this case, the child care presents a need for monogamy. Or I should say, responsible procreation presents a need for monogamy.
As a social expectation of exclusivity, you can get reactions to monogamy like Beetle mentioned above.
But as a social expectation of responsible procreation, the value is much more evident in how it assists the care of the children.
So, in short, as you remove the expectation of responsible procreation (designated by the expectation of one man and one woman committed for life) you greatly diminish (and in the apparent case of Perry, remove entirely) the expectation of monogamy.
On Lawn: So, in short, as you remove the expectation of responsible procreation (designated by the expectation of one man and one woman committed for life) you greatly diminish (and in the apparent case of Perry, remove entirely) the expectation of monogamy.
"Remove" from what exactly though?
It's not like we're revising some rulebook all married couples study and follow. Aren't couples encouraged to be monogamous and responsible far more by the consequences and benefits of being married, rather than by a definition they read in a dictionary?
On Lawn,
I can see exactly where you're coming from with that post. Definitely agree that monogamy and promiscuity are biologically linked factors, although as everyone should know are also environmentally influenced to some extent (having a parent/parents who have cheated, etc). Very informative and easy to follow explanation though Lawn, I appreciate it.
I would still question, though, whether or not a few of us may be mixing up a couple topics at once? Your explanation provides that child care will undoubtedly increase the need for monogomy, and from everything I've read as of yet I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I have never seen evidence that not having children in turn makes monogomy a difficulty. I think we are somehow all crossing personal decisions of faithfulness with biological evidence, which are two very hard things to mix appropriately.
Perhaps with all the conversation a couple things have just become a bit jumbled, or maybe I'm just in a bit of disagreeance on this particular issue. I still do not agree that the statement "neutering marriage removes the expectation of monogamy". I think if you were to talk to a same-sex couple you would find that they would undoubtedly encourage monogomy in their relationship, if we're talking about serious substantial relationships. I don't think same sex couples pursue relationships saying "Well now that same sex marriage is available, theres no expectation for monogomy! Do what you will with whomever you want!" This just seems a little silly On Lawn.
As to the rest of your post, spot on. Thanks for the explanation, I thoroughly enjoyed it! ^_^
Always reaching,
Concerned
However, I have never seen evidence that not having children in turn makes monogomy a difficulty.
I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote, but since you bring it up I have such evidence.
This is nothing new to us who have seen the honeymoon die somewhere under a pile of diapers and lost date-nights.
I understand where you are coming from. You don't see a connection, and that is fine. But others do, especially on the side wishing to neuter marriage. Like I said before, I never made the connection until I saw them time after time degrading monogamy as an expectation in marriage.
The point is simply, they have no basis for monogamy so their definitions and hearts tend to wander.
This is true for heterosexuals who no longer see the importance of their tie to children also.
So whatever cartoon you wrap around the concept, the reality is much stranger and more verifiable than fiction.
On Lawn,
The comment that you responded to, "However, I have never seen evidence that not having children in turn makes monogomy a difficulty", with the article you provided is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. That article does not say that not having children makes monogomy difficult. In fact, thats exactly the OPPOSITE of what the article that you provided says. That articles stresses that in their study, marriage has become less satisfying after childbirth. This would mean monogomy is less likely, since the marriage is less satisfying with children. That is exactly the opposite of what you're saying, that monogomy is more likely because of the need to care for children. That article is, in fact, a polar 360 from everything you have posted recently.
I don't agree with the article at all, but I'm confused as to why you would post an article that shows studies in stark contrast to what you believe. Are you yanking my chain On? ^_^
Sincerely,
Concerned
In fact, thats exactly the OPPOSITE of what the article that you provided says.
Granted, I must have read it wrong on the first go round. Thanks for pointing that out.
in stark contrast to what you believe.
It is very much in line with what I believe. The difference is the need for monogamy is present with the children, along with the increased pressure of dissatisfaction.
^
O_o
When marriage is rooted in that very need, it better explains to those who need the boost of resolve just why they are remaining monogamous.
This isn't about Gays. It's about Marriage, Sex, and Responsible Fatherhood.
The moral? Maybe we should never judge a book by its cover, or a belief about marriage by just a few lines?
No problem on the point out, just was slightly thrown off! ^_^ Hope to see some of your future blogs on articles to come!
Ever open,
Concerned
Concerned, you've walked in circles.
Earlier a question was asked: why would a gay couple need fertility treatment?
You replied:
"Mary needs fertility treatment, she and Steve are unmarried [...] she gets the fertility treatment and therefore benefits her gay relationship by becoming pregnant."
The question was why the *gay couple* would need fertility treatment. It was not why would an unmarried man-woman pair need fertility treatment.
You did not answer either question, anyway, although you did assert that the reason they needed fertility treatment was that they needed fertility treatment.
* * *
As a follow-up I had asked: how does attaining a child through the use of a “donor” benefit a “gay relationship”?
You replied:
"I suppose the answer would be that if the point was to gain a child, gaining it through whatever means necessary would be a benefit. It would achieve the entire purpose."
Cute but unresponsive.
You said that the benefit in gaining a child through this method is gaining a child through this method.
* * *
If you do not have a substantive answer, that is okay, but please don't pose as if you are deeply concerned, if concerned at all, in answering the questions that your own comments have raised.
Thanks.
Marie said:
"It’s not like we’re revising some rulebook all married couples study and follow. Aren’t couples encouraged to be monogamous and responsible far more by the consequences and benefits of being married, rather than by a definition they read in a dictionary?"
If there is no ruleboook, then, what does the encouraging?
And the definition, as you put it, is a core meaning of a social insitution which does have a coherency that acts as a kind of set of rules for behavior.
* * *
On Lawn said that removing the expecttion for responsible procreation would greatly diminish the expectation for monogamy.
Marie asked: "'Remove' [provision for responsible procreation] from what exactly though?"
From societal regard for the social institution of marriage. Negating this core meaning is what SSM argumentation is designed to do.
Concerned said:
" This would mean monogomy is less likely, since the marriage is less satisfying with children. That is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that monogomy is more likely because of the need to care for children."
If we are discussing urges and sentimens and such, sure that may be so. However, the social institution of marriage mitigates such things and provides the context that returns to sexual fidelity -- not because it feels nice, but because it is embedded in the need for both man and woman to be responsible to and for each other -- and for their children (or prospective children). This does have an overlfow effect on childless couples -- especially where infertility is experienced. And this overlfow effect touches all outside of marriage as well.
Seperating responsible procreation from sexual monogamy is evidently what SSM argumentation proposes. When children are mentioned we usually see SSMers point to third party procreation, which is extramarital procreation even when married people use it. And SSMers will also point to children living in same-sex households; the vast majority (upwards of 90%) arrived in such housheolds by migrating with one of their parents from a previously procreational relationship (usually marraige). Again, pointing outside of marriage and away from sexual monogamy with the person with whom one has procreated.
Chairm, you of all people should not be the one accusing others of talking in circles. Glass houses, stones, blah blah blah
Chairm,
First off, hostility I sense? Please calm yourself, this is a forum not a venting center for your frustrations Sir/Madam! If you were not satisfied with my answers you have every right to point that out, but there's no need to call out my personal feelings of concern. ^_^
Chairm, I'm going to have say this bluntly, which I almost feel bad for because I don't feel ilke it's your fault but more a communication breakdown. You "sum up" my point by saying "You said that the benefit in gaining a child through this method is gaining a child through this method." This seems like such an OBVIOUS statement to you, and one that doesnt address your question. However, if you would be so kind as to reread the post I responded to your question with, you would in fact see that I opened with "The answer to your question is self evident." The question that you asked made no sense to begin with, but I tried to be clear in answering in simple terms. It's obvious that you got the gist of it, so I'm perplexed to see you are still confused as to the answer of your question. If a couple wants a child, and they find a way to have one, I would think the benefit is ONCE AGAIN self evident. =D
Chairm, to answer the first part of your post, I think I need to explain that under no condition did the question say that BOTH members of a gay couple needed fertility treatment. Only one person from a couple would need the fertility treatment, so the donor issue was just a way of illustrating how this lesbian couple was going to get sperm. As unmarried people, either the man that they chose to be the donator or the woman who was going to carry the baby. I think I was unclear with what I meant here so I can see your confusion. However, the fact remains that the original question, "Why would a gay couple need fertility", is lackluster question and deserves a lackluster answer if any.
A gay couple would need fertility treatment to have a baby if one of the members had fertility problems.
Does that answer the question more appropriately for you? I hope we cleared this up! ^_^
Awaiting more of your posts on further issues/articles,
Concerned
Chairm,
"” This would mean monogomy is less likely, since the marriage is less satisfying with children. That is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that monogomy is more likely because of the need to care for children.”"
^^ This was the statement you quoted from me in the above post.
The two paragraphs you wrote after this statement are misleading though, since that is not what the article was addressing. Though I enjoy hearing your opinion, I was responding to the meaning of the article, whereas your following paragraphs are not anything that is covered in said article. Just wanted to make sure we had those two ideas as separate.
Always,
Concerned
Concern, you projected too much and answered too little. And that says alot.
Heh.
* * *
You said; "If a couple wants a child, and they find a way to have one, I would think the benefit is ONCE AGAIN self evident."
What the "gay couple" wants is self-justified. That is your so-called self-evident point.
You walked in another circle.
* * *
You said:
"A gay couple would need fertility treatment to have a baby if one of the members had fertility problems."
Human fertility is not one-sexed. As is evident by the need of the man's sperm that you emphasized in your own explanation.
The definitive lack of the other sex in a "gay couple" is not infertility.
That lack may not be felt as a lack by the one-sexed twosome, but it is a lack in this context of fertility.
Concern, why would you seperate the article from the discussion?
The definitive lack of the other sex in a “gay couple” is not infertility.
Right, but now you're saying that a person in a gay relationship couldn't also suffer infertility issues? Last time I checked those were unlink issues Chair, you jest!
As far as circles, the only circle I have seen is you writing off topic. The article, which by the way was linked not by me but by another blogger, was relevant to the topic. I was referencing the article in the discussion, and it was you Sir/Madan who then wrote about a completely unrelated topic. The article was no separated from the discussion, your post was devoid of pertaining to either. Hehe.
With love,
Concerned
On Lawn:
"This isn’t about Gays. It’s about Marriage, Sex, and Responsible Fatherhood."
As long as you allow childless couples to remain married, the table turns back around and points at the gays, screaming it's all about THEM. Your argument, once again, fails. "It's ok to be married without children, as long as you AREN'T GAY" seems to be the entire point. Spread it how you wish, claim they can always marry the opposite sex, rather than a partner of their choosing(removing the freedom here, and denying equality is what you do here), but your argument always fails.
What the “gay couple” wants is self-justified. That is your so-called self-evident point.
"You walked in another circle."
No Chairm, I must say this is quite the contrary of a circle. In fact, it is a perfectly linear concept.
1)Want Child---2)Infertile---3)Fertility Treatment---4)Child.
If you'd like you can add "5) The obvious benefit, meeting the goal" but I think you can probably came to that conclusion without. If I can straighten out any more circles, please let me know I would be happy to oblige.
Concerned
“It’s ok to be married without children, as long as you AREN’T GAY” seems to be the entire point.
It would be churlish (perhaps defensive) in my mind to put it that way.
Man and woman is the reproduction relationship, and suprises do happen. Even for people intending not to have kids. Its good to know marriage is there for them and the child.
And since man+woman is the reproductive relationship, when it doesn't work due to infertility, thats a handicap or a disability. Its something they should expect, but something has gone wrong. I support access for the disabled.
But that is something entirely different than a homosexual relationship. Its not a disability if they don't have kids together, its simply not a property of their relationship.
On Lawn said: “It’s ok to be married without children, as long as you AREN’T GAY” seems to be the entire point.
It would be churlish (perhaps defensive) in my mind to put it that way.
----------------------------------------------
And yet your entire 3 paragraphs after that you merely reinforced the above quote. Sugar coat it however you want, but that's what it boils down to in your mind. Glad we got that cleared up.
Perry,
Its churlish because it places the blame on the wrong party, just like you did.
I'm just the messenger, and the biology of the situation is well understood. Perhaps you should ask someone you trust where babies come from?
Well I think the "message" youre carrying got lost along the way. You're talking biology/reproduction and I'm talking love+commitment. You're talking about 3 people. I'm talking about 2.
I'm talking about marriage being love and commitment between two consenting adults.
Youre talking about marriage being about two people coming together to make a baby (which is "reproduction" to me--but whatever--I'm just the messenger).
By gones are by gones. We are talking about two very different things that fall under what we think marriage is. Doesn't make either one right or wrong..but I have to say that I am not restricting your life in any way shape or form...prohibiting you from something just because I dont agree with your belief. But bottom line you are attempting to restrict my life quite severly because I do not agree with your belief.
You’re talking biology/reproduction and I’m talking love+commitment.
Wrong. I'm talking about all four. You are only talking about two. I think both should be recognized, but you do a disservice to reduce both to the same thing. Thats just the same as removing the importance of love and commitment across the bonds of reproduction/biology. And that is rather malignant, if you ask me.
Wrong. I'm actually talking about three. Biology can not be ruled out of my argument because no one can properly study human attraction, phermones, chemistry, and sex drive. And men are biologically compatible, otherwise sex/intercourse would not be possible between two men.
So I am talking about Biology+Love+Commitment...and you are talking about Biology+Love+Commitment+Reproduction..........and in my opinion, "reproduction" has no stake in marriage because marriage is between two people, not a hypothetical third.
After all "to marry" literally means to "take one as a husband or wife".
And yet “support” (whatever that means), love, and money can still be provided without marriage.
Exactly, you are trying to remove something very valuable from marriage that doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be.
Let marriage be marriage.
sorry that cut and paste didn't work. The quote was (believe it or not) also said by Perry but from a different thread.
The quote that illicited the response above is...
“reproduction” has no stake in marriage because marriage is between two people, not a hypothetical third.
I was merely stating that all those things can be provided without marriage. Not trying to "remove" something....but along that lines, now that you bring it up.....So why have marriage if you don't need it? If all those things can be provided and are provided at free will, why even have marriage in the first place.
Concern said:
"a person in a gay relationship couldn’t also suffer infertility issues?"
Within the gay relationship, nope.
Not if you mean the relationship is one-sexed. There is nothing the two persons could do sexually together that could qualify as fertile or infertile.
The scenario is nonfertile even if both individuals are reproductively healthy and fertile with the other sex.
A lone indvidual, acting solo, and regardless of sexual orientation, cannot be fertile without the other sex. A twosome or a moresome of the same sex, likewise.
One might use shorthand and say an individual may be potentially fertile; but only with the other sex.
Conversely, an individual might be infertile -- but only in the context of a two-sexed scenario.
If that person is infertile, it is clearly not due to the lack of the other sex. A one-sexed scenario, sexualized or not, is nonfertile -- it is categorically never fertile in the first place.
Fertility is linked to both sexes. It is not one-sexed. Very obviously so.
Your own earlier remarks concede this even as you now attempt to reframe the question as asked.
Maybe you mean to carve out a specific cricumstance in which an individual suffers ill-health. But you did not say so earlier. And the question about two persons of the same sex, not an individual.
* * *
The question Marty asked: why would a gay couple need fertility treatment?
You said:
"1)Want Child—2)Infertile—3)Fertility Treatment—4)Child."
You would transform a question of need into a question of want.
Marty's question remains unaddressed by your having pivoted on one foot.
You might want to return to his comment upthread and recalibrate your thinking on this.
* * *
JHG.
Chairm: your logic is incorrect. Fertile, plain and simple is the ability to reproduce. 'Reproduction' is dependent on the opposite sex. Not fertility. A person is either fertile, or they arent. They are either capable of reproducing or not...whether in a gay relationship or a straight one. Fertility is not dependent on sexuality. Reproduction is. There is no grey area with that.
So why have marriage if you don’t need it?
I think I see your point. And its what I've wondered from people who are trying to change the definition of marriage.
I mean, if you really don't want to be married (meaning equality in how children are created) then don't take it away from everyone else and coopt the name.
Chairm, I was going to correct your definition of fertility but it seems it has been done for me. Therefore I will move on to the second point you make, which is rather confusing considering you have refuted nothing specific.
The original quested as posted states, "Now why on earth would a gay couple need fertility treatment?"
I have provided a line for you in the above post to explain why a gay couple would need fertility treatment. Perhaps if you could point out which point of that linear concept you don't understand, I could make it clearer for you.
(P.S.-You can even use the numbers to be specific! ^_^)
Thanks,
Concerned
As for the cited article, the issue studies was marital satisfaction. It was a study of husband-wife duos. The decline in satisfaction is not induced by children, but the decline is hastened. Does that mean failure? Nope. It just means that marriage is designed to hold husband and wife together through the natural stresses that come with procreation and childraising. This points to the influence of a social institution rather than to the more fickle sentiment of romance and attraction.
My earlier comment is directly on this topic.
Sexual monogamy is not directly connected with the core of SSM which does not unite the sexes nor does it provide for responsible procreation. But it is dependant on the fickle sentiment of romance an attraction.
If unions of husband and wife viewed themselves merely as players in a romance or instruments for the sexual gratification of one another, then, the inevitable stresses that follow their wedding day will be all the more likely to deplete marital satisfaction.
Marriage means more. Sexual monogamy arises from the core of marriage and is not a standalone constraint. Marriage requires self-governance and that reuires self-restraint and delayed gratification. Monogamy is given great significance within the coherency of the marriage idea itself.
Hence the powerful influence of marriage which makes normative the very idea of fatherhood. SSM does not possess this power and SSMers deride the very idea of a core meaning that is based on uniting the sexes.
What is the point of sexual monogamy in an all-male or an all-female arrangement?
I am not saying there is no possible point, but I am asking. How would SSM make sexual monogamy normative among homosexual men and women? Indeed, is SSM's purpose to influence almost all such men and women to enter SSM and to remain sexually monogamous?
I doubt that SSM has a function of this sort. It may be some newly idealized version of same-sex sexual arrangements, but it will lack the normative power to influence all but a small segment of the adult homosexual population.
Perry you are mistaken.
Show me someone who has proven fertile without the other sex.
You referred to capability, as did I. No individual, acting alone, is capable of procreation (which is what you meant by reproduction) and thus is not fertile without the other sex.
Potentially fertile, yes, if reproductively healthy.
The one-sexed arrangement is nonfertile without the other sex.
Concern, the question was of need. You went straight to want and stayed there.
Okay, so you say that want dictates need. My earliest response to you still stands. And you still stand with one foot planted as you pivot.
Chairm,
Your silly analogies are becoming tiresome. However, I will entertain your posts a little longer so that I can hopefully receive a logical response from you.
"You went straight to want and stayed there."
No, once again the question was of need and that was the item addressed in the linear concept. I think you are confusing "need fertility treatment" with "need a baby". I would still, since you have now brought it up twice, love for you to point out where I have flawed in the linear concept that should be oh-so-easy for you to understand. Since you seem so heavily invested in pointing out how I am not talking about need, you can once against reexamine the line and tell me where it strays from the question.
Looking forward to a proper response and wishing you clarity,
Concerned
Perry and Concern,
Do you assert that essentially human fertility and human procreation is single-sexed?
I'd hope not.
Infertility is diagnosed after lots of coitus -- typically two years -- and failure to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term.
Fertility is demonstrated by conceiving and bearing children.
A man and a woman, together, form the human organism that is potentially fertile and procreative.
A lone individual, or a group of individuals of the same sex, does not form such an organism. That is not a disability of reproductive powers. For such a scenario is not potentially fertile nor procreative in the first place. It lacks reproductive power because it lacks the other sex.
How is that you need to be walked through such basic stuff? Maybe you seek to reframe human fertility and human procreation as indifferent to sex differentation.
Which returns to the question, as asked, about the peson in a same-sex relationship. Does being gay change the nature of human fertility and procreation? Nope. Does gayness justify fertility treatment? Nope. Neither does sexual orientation of other varieties.
Chairm,
Since we're having multiple post conversations here, you say "It just means that marriage is designed to hold husband and wife together through the natural stresses that come with procreation and childraising. "
No, that is not what it means. In fact, that isn't what it says at all. Once again you are interjecting your own personal conclusions from an article that says no such thing. I think you should probably drop your posts about the article because you have, as of yet, never addressed the issue and have instead substituted your conclusions for what the article meant. The article says that children hasten the decline of marital satisfaction, which you acknowledge in your very own post. However, it does not say "It just means that marriage is designed to hold husband and wife together through the natural stresses that come with procreation and childraising. "
It doesn't "just mean" this at all, in fact there are no points of the article that point to this conclusion. This is simply your own opinion, and you do wrong my inaccurately saying that it is the article, rather than your own mind, that is making these statements.
Concern while you desperately dodge, I'll await a more substantive response from you.
I said:
"The decline in satisfaction is not induced by children, but the decline is hastened. Does that mean failure? Nope. It just means that marriage is designed to hold husband and wife together through the natural stresses that come with procreation and childraising."
I did not say the article said this.
Read more carefully before criticizing. It will save you much frustration and embarrasement on your part.
Chairm,
I am not embarrassed in the least by my posts, but more yours. Nor am I dodging, it seems that you are continuously dodging my question. You have continuously said that my response to the fertility question is inadequate, yet every time I have asked you to please point out where the argument went wrong for you I have been ignored. Until you can please a legitimate rebuttle and back up your own statements, you will be the one continuously facing embarrassment. = /
Sincerely,
Concerned
Concerned, your comments belie a lack of sincerity and if you are not embarrassed by that, then, so be it.
Concerned,
Chairm is right btw. And his conclusions are accurate based on the evidence given in the article.
As I put it above, it shows an increased need for support. Marriage is that support.
When it is re-defined it no longer is that support, and no longer grounded in the obvious principles that lend to the conclusion of marriage's need for monogamy and love persisting with or without sexual attraction.
Why?
Because children do, their relationship is now embodied and lives on. The better they recognize that and live for that, the more peace and stability and joy there is for the whole family.
Geez, when women got the right to vote, and voting became gender neutral as marriage is becoming, it can't possibly have created the fuss SSM has created. And that was a much bigger social and cultural change!
Hmmm,
I call woman's sufferage "gender equality" meaning that you need representation from both men and women.
It was gender inclusive.
Thats a good thing for each marriage as well as the legislature.
On Lawn: When it is re-defined it no longer is that support, and no longer grounded in the obvious principles that lend to the conclusion of marriage’s need for monogamy and love persisting with or without sexual attraction.
But... it's not like there's a rush to divorce for everyone when their children grow up and move out? And I know plenty of childless couples who are sickeningly-sweetly devoted to one another, I guess because they ARE each other's world. And I know of many couples that are driven apart specifically because one of them couldn't deal with the pressures of raising a child?
On Lawn,
Both genders can marry with opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. No gender is being excluded. Even hermaphrodites!
Jeffrey,
Thats like saying all races still get schooling with all-white and all-black schools.
Way to recycle the same arguments as your predecessors.
I call woman’s sufferage “gender equality” meaning that you need representation from both men and women.
It was gender inclusive.
Thats a good thing for each marriage as well as the legislature.
On Lawn: Thats like saying all races still get schooling with all-white and all-black schools.
How so?
No one is suggesting that we create a separate institutions for same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. They're suggesting that we remove the gender requirement altogether, making it "gender blind."
You can't have it both ways. Half the time we hear about "neutering" marriage, implying that gender will no longer matter. The other half we hear how SSM is somehow bigoted towards excluding a gender... or something like that, I can't wrap my head around that point.
On lawn,
Well, what about race inclusion? Should we force mixed marriages, so that races get included? How about religions? Or is your "gender inclusion" proposition unique to gender for some reason? Let me guess!
Marriage has nothing to do with the equality of the sexes. If so we would be forcing people to marry. A single male or female is considered equal just as a married male or female.
Stephanie,
They’re suggesting that we remove the gender requirement altogether, making it “gender blind.”
Correction, the requirement for equal gender participation.
If only Governor Wallace were as smart as you, perhaps he could have simply stated his all-white and all-black schools were "race neutral" because they didn't require them to be integrated.
Good going Stephanie, you and Gov. Wallace would be good friends. Segregationists of the same feather.
Jeffrey,
Should we force mixed marriages, so that races get included?
Laughable!
Marriage equality includes both genders in the same marriage.
Good luck including all races in the same marriage
Oh, and I'll also note that forced mixed marriages has been a historic way of committing cultural genocide.
Or how can you include all religions?
I'm beginning to see a pattern here. People gullible and ignorant enough to speak as Jeffrey and Stephanie, are the very models of the kind of thinking required to neuter marriage.
take a look folks,
Jeffrey and Stephanie are giving us prime examples of the future of not only marriage, but legal understanding.
We can see that they will throw anything and everything that has humanitarian value under the oh-so-noble "Gay pride" bus.
I'm not against supporting gay relationships through government recognition. But I don't think I'm the only one getting tired of the "if your logic doesn't work for me I'm going to find another group of people to punish with it". I'm also noting how everything has to be gay focused, or nothing can have any focus at all.
If only they though more about how they should treat others, rather than screaming about how people should treat themselves.
On Lawn,
You know what's tiresome? People who have the right to marry the person of their choice who unequivocally want to deny that right, which they insist on for themselves, to others. These people come up with the most inane arguments for why they should be allowed to do something, but others can't. And they're willing to hurt children in order to get their way. It's beyond comprehension but I know change can be hard for some people. Terrifying, evidently.
"I’m not against supporting gay relationships through government recognition."
Awesome! We have a set of rules and regulations, called marriage, that accomplish this.
"If only they thought more about how they should treat others, rather than screaming about how people should treat themselves."
No one's screaming. I AM thinking about how others are treated: I am a heterosexual male who believes there is no rational reason why the lesbian couples down the street, with two sons, by the way, should not solidify their relationship through marriage. I don't even know if they are particularly interested in getting married, to be honest. But they're raising kids, and those darn kids deserve the best shot at having the two adults raising them stay together.
On Law: yes they stefanie and jeffrey are the future because they, like the new generation of Americans are starting to see the world as gray. Nothing is set in stone..laws change and ideas change along with them. You seem stuck in the past and really hope you live to see the day gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and your black and white world breaks apart a little..and you will realize that your life really hasn't changed all that much...I invite you to live in the gray area for a while and be open to other people's (especially the new generation) beliefs and ways of thinking...and instead of trying to categorize and place every person and idea in a neat little box, instead just realize that there are things you can't control, explain, define...and that it really isn't all that bad
Perry,
I agree with your sentiments but I have a bit of resentment that you think it's only the young who have the ability to play fair with marriage: I'm over 50.
Jeffrey, that was not an ageist remark and I merely remarked about the similiarities between you and stefanie's way of thinking with the mentality of the younger generation of America. I have said countless times that I believe fighting against marriage equality is ultimately futile because support for equality increases yearly at a rate of approximately 2 percent in polls (which is large in part due to the fact as younger people reach voting age and as older, conservative voters pass away). I was not insinuating only the young, I was commending you for the similiarities in your beliefs and being willing to remain open minded (which I'm sure is rare..as statistically the older the voter the more conservative they tend to be)
Jeffrey: Awesome! We have a set of rules and regulations, called marriage, that accomplish this.
Still though, isn't there a valid argument to be made that opposite-sex marriages deserve to be recognized, celebrated and rewarded on their own merit, specifically AS and for their unique, opposite-sex struggles?
I realize people often point out that we don't separate inter-racial marriages, childless marriages, etc. from others. It's all under the same umbrella.
But sexual attraction is the very thing that usually brings people together into a marriage. It's the core, "defining" dynamic that creates a marriage in many ways.
It's true that both same-sex and opposite-sex partners commit to one another, but one relationship binds identical sexual contexts into a parallel partnership, while the other binds polarities into a complementary whole.
It's not that I want to see gays prevented from "marriage." I just wish there was a way to preserve the specialness of the male/female union too.
I'm going to my nephew's first birthday party tomorrow. A very special birthday! But we're also going to be celebrating another nephew's birthday at the same party.. Even though his birthday is weeks away, they thought it'd be more convenient to just do both in one party, on one day. But don't they both deserve their own parties?
I dunno, I'm just asking. I keep going around and around with this issue, and never seem to find a solution that seems fair to everyone.
More equality fallaices,
know what’s tiresome? People who have the right to marry the person of their choice who unequivocally want to deny that right, which they insist on for themselves, to others.
So whats wrong with that statement?
In truth, no one gets to marry anyone they choose. Its the adolescent view of "I can do anything I want" with the same fallacy behind it.
First, marriage commiting to loving and supporting as the other parent of your future kids. Its a commitment founded in our biology of how we have kids, for the sake of the kids and each parent.
I don't think it is less than obvious how that impacts our choice of who we marry.
Even with that understanding (which is basic) most of the world is off limits at any given time. Either they are too young, already married, not interested in you, related, be someone who you might be able to have kids with at all...
etc...
But if the world doesn't revolve around you, (and you feel to cry out that its not fair, its not equal) Sorry, but in that way the world is fair to all of us. The world doesn't always work the way we chose it too.
Awesome! We have a set of rules and regulations, called marriage, that accomplish this.
But then what institution will look after the equal recognition of rights and entitlements of everyone involved in creating a child (man + woman)?
You don't have any use for it, it shouldn't exist?
Yes, it should exist. That is how we tolerate and care for others that are not like us. We appreciate their uniqueness and allow value to be placed on what they have that we don't.
That is where true peace, both inner peace and global peace, comes from. But flattening any difference, or anything you don't have a use for, is simply mean spirited to the others.
. I AM thinking about how others are treated:
Great! Then you'll let marriage be marriage and let homosexuality be homosexuality?
But they’re raising kids, and those darn kids deserve the best shot at having the two adults raising them stay together.
See, even when you try to consider what is best for the kids you can't help but pander your select group.
If someone really loved the kids they created, they'd love honor and support the person they created them with.
If they really loved the kids they wanted to raise, they'd make sure the house had equal gender representation.
Not bigoted discrimination against another gender. That's no model of equality to teach the next generation.
But alas, they love themselves more. And as such, I suppose we should do the best we can for the kids inspite of the "me, me, me" parenthood. As if children are resiliant, and the adults are the victims to be pandered to.\
Its not that they don't love and care for the kids, and that should be recognized. But its the difference between loving and caring for them, and doing whatever you can do to provide what is best for them.
One involves having them sacrifice their opportunity for your convenience. The latter invovles sacrificing your opporutnity to facilitate their best interests.
And those are entirely seperate altruisms, the latter being one that should defninately be recognized with its own institution.
stefanie and jeffrey are the future because they, like the new generation of Americans are starting to see the world as gray.
Sounds like a cloudy day to me. Perhaps they need to get out from under the clouds and look around more.
Because there are many home situations which need help and support. The equality they profess is undermined each time they only say "homosexual" or some variant. Its undermined every time they say "same-sex" but really just mean homosexuals.
If they are young then they have hope yet to get out in the sunshine and see things in a whole new and more clear light.
and your black and white world breaks apart a little
There we go, Perry, the Rush Limbaugh of neutering marriage.
Speaking of black and white, the all-black and all-white schools are another example of how seperate is not equal. Along side an all-male and all-female marriage.
I mean, if they really wanted to get married they would. Whats stopping them? The expectation of equal gender participaiton ranks against their bigotry against the other gender?
Well that and many more problems, I'm sure.
Jeffrey, that was not an ageist remark and I merely remarked about the similiarities between you and stefanie’s way of thinking with the mentality of the younger generation of America.
Did Perry really just say Jeffrey thinks like a teenager still?
I'd have to agree with that, except many teenagers have a better grasp on realith than to say some of the singers Jeffrey has.
My favorite whack-a-mole from Jeffrey is the whole making same-sex marriage "illegal" as if people will be thrown in jail if they have a ceremony and live their lives together. Every time I point out how inane that statement is he leaves it lie, to pop it up fresh 1-12 comments later.
My other favorite from Jeffrey is how every so many comments, he relates same-sex marriage to divorce and adultery as if he wants it to be as well accepted as those maladies.
Well, his wish is granted, and the comparison (his not my own) is duly noted.
You really wish, Perry, that more people thought like that?
I wish they had better reasoning skills, if you ask me.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Keep up the Fight! Go marriage! Go NOM!
One Trackback
[...] I was debating in the marriage forum this week I had the unfortunate experience of running into a commenter who took such violently vitriolic offense to the views of marriage [...]