Check out the marquee on this sign located on NH Rt. 1 bypass in Portsmouth, just a 1/2 mile south of the traffic circle…
Sign of the Times….
June 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm
-
Categories
- Adoption
- Ads
- Africa
- Alerts
- Australia
- Canada
- Catholic Church
- Chick-fil-A
- Children
- Civil Unions
- Civility
- Cohabitation
- Congress
- Corporate Ethics
- Culture
- Debating Marriage
- Divorce
- DOMA
- Dump General Mills
- Dump Starbucks
- Economics
- Education
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- Featured
- Federal
- France
- Free Speech
- Gay Voices
- GOProud
- Human Rights Campaign
- Humor
- IRS
- Law
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- March for Marriage
- Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- MarriageADA
- Media
- Mexico
- Mitt Romney
- New Zealand
- News
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- Offbeat
- Parenting
- Pedophilia
- Politics
- Poll
- Polling
- Polygamy
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Pro-Life
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Research/Study
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Science
- SFMA
- Social Media
- South America
- SPLC
- States
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Statistics
- Supreme Court
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- Women
- Youth
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
111 Comments
Governor Lynch broke his word to the voters. None of the people we sent to the statehouse campaigned on this issue. They didn't ask, they didn't listen, they didn't represent, they went rogue and denied the people a voice.
They can't expect to keep the people's seats after a betrayal like that.
I do agree with the position that someone running in office should represent their view at least until the next campaign go around. I believe there should be some contract that binds politicians positions.
I know the momentum and feelings are strong right now. Will the people of NH fall into a lackadaisical passiveness next year? I hope they remember this, but often times time has a way of lulling us to sleep. People of NH please don't be asleep at the helm next elections.
We should consider taking this to federal district court demanding a injunction to protect our religious rights and our freedoms. The way this was handled should be a 'slam dunk' to over turn in our courts.
So John you want to take it to those activist judges?
To John (5:27 am). An injunction? You'd be laughed right out of court. Your religious freedoms are protected - they would have been even without the added language. Some people seem have a warped understanding of what freedom of religion is. The government can't infringe on your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. This doesn't mean that if the world around you doesn't mirror your particular beliefs, your rights are being violated. As the old saying goes: your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.
@Steve;
The provisions in the law do not protect the Christian who does not want to provide services to gay waddings. Saying otherwise is just more homosexual lying. Which, at this point, I say should be expected.
Otherwise, those nice lesbians would not have taken that photographer to court in New Mexico
Really, I truly think your statement is aimed at the casual reader of this forum, and not the Christian.
By providing services to a same sex wedding, you support what is going on. It would be immoral to support this type of relationship because it assumes homosexual sexual activity. Not only is homosexual activity frowned upon in the bible put also goes against natural law.
Phil: Someone who provides a service (a service versus a public accommodation) can refuse to take anyone's business. I assume you would stand up for the rights of a gay caterer to refuse to provide his services for the wedding of a heterosexual Baptist couple and that you realize it would be unfair to protect only the biases of Christians. I'll say it again, religious freedom doesn't mean that the rights of your fellow citizens must be limited to meet your particular religious beliefs.
Another sign of the times:
“Globally, men who engage in homosexual relations are 19 times as likely to contract HIV as the rest of the population.”
Such reports have led at least one prominent homosexual leader to admit the obvious. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -- the nation’s AIDS U.S. Capitol DC oldest gay rights group -- told the organization’s national conference last year:
“Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi[sexual], we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”
Secular Heretic: By providing services to a same sex wedding, you support what is going on.
If you refuse services to everyone who's sinned, your business won't last very long.
You can't teach the "Good News" while hiding behind self-righteousness indignation. Go forth amoungst them. That's where true courage is.
Secular Heretic I see your point. Marie, If you were to sell a weapon to a murderer, it would hardly matter about your business profit wise would it? It's the ethics of the thing.
@Steve:
"Phil: Someone who provides a service (a service versus a public accommodation) can refuse to take anyone’s businss."
And get sued for doing so.
@Kevin;
"Why should Christians get to refuse to provide services at same-sex weddings?"
Because Christians consider it an immoral activity?
"Does the Bible say one may not provide services to a same-sex wedding?"
As long as the service involves a stoning, maybe. But since the invention of the rule of law, has been generally frowned upon. Most Christians don't want to be forced into providing services or have their friends have anything to do with helping homosexuals accomplish what many Christians consider wrong. And why all this "air of inevitably" the gay activist tries to project is not necessarily the case.
At least you're honest in saying that Christians would in fact not have a say in the matter and would have to provide services. A lot better than the deluded that say there will be a choice.
Vargas: It’s the ethics of the thing.
No it's not.
It's the self-righteous, ego "high" of playing G-d and judging people as if they were He. Of making oneself "better than." Of hoping no one will notice one's own's sins by pointing the attention at someone else's.
I hope you are against gun law restrictions then?
Marie, why do you imagine to know Phil's motive or intent? Perhaps it is you that is playing G-d.
Ray: Marie, why do you imagine to know Phil’s motive or intent? Perhaps it is you that is playing G-d.
You're absolutely right. My apologies to Vargas.
It just makes me sad to see a "type" of people singled out for rejection. We all have our sins.
@ Vargas - Not sure we're you've been since 1981 but we all know that gay men are the demographic with the highest rate of HIV infections. There are many reasons for that fact but we don't need to go into them here. However, AIDS has qbsolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage so I'm not sure what the intent of your post was.
Well sure we all know it but having a gay activist be so publicly blunt about it is new at least to me. I am pleased to see some openness about the subject.
Sign of the times?
Marie, singled out for rejection? Sins ought to always be singled out for rejection. People? Never.
It is such a shame that people should forsake their promises and personal values for something that is made out to be politically correct. Even more shameful is the latter, that violating the sacred social institution of marriage is now thought of as the right thing to do and the source of horrid social injustice.
We need to help these people not condemn them. Sins, like drug and alcohol addiction can be treated. Once these people have given up their addiction, they lead much happier lives filled with peace and serenity. Organizations like NARTH have treated homosexuals for years, those that come into therapy with a sincere heart. We cannot condone addictions we must treat them with sex addition aversion therapies. Legalizing and encouraging young children in school to experiment by exposing them to same sex marriage is not the solution.
The exercise of freedom of conscience is not restricted to religious exercise of that liberty.
A photographer is not required by law to photograph everything that an inquiring potential customers might demand.
Take the politicized heat out of the pro-SSM sides' identity politics and the issue of justice is pretty obviously decided in favor of liberty rather than coerced compliance with SSM.
But identity politics is the the trump card upon which SSM arugmentation depends, always. Where SSM is imposed or enaced, expect to be pressured to comply one way or the other.
Vargas: Marie, singled out for rejection? Sins ought to always be singled out for rejection. People? Never.
Well by that I mean it seems gays are picked on (fired, not served to, etc.) for being gay, but adulterers, liars, drinkers, smokers, etc. are rarely treated like that.
I think - don't hold me to it, but I think whether or not someone can be sued for not catering a same-sex wedding depends on the anti-discimination laws of the state, not the SSM law. Although I realize some states have put extra clauses in the SSM wording just to make sure.
Vargas: "Secular Heretic I see your point. Marie, If you were to sell a weapon to a murderer, it would hardly matter about your business profit wise would it? It’s the ethics of the thing."
I'm not saying I completely agree with either side...but If youre in the business of selling guns, then you really have to have the knowledge that you are probably going to sell a gun to a murderer at some point in your life. People who are THAT concerned about ethics probably arent in the gun selling industry. I invite you to make another analogy perhaps to reinforce your claim.
John said "Legalizing and encouraging young children in school to experiment by exposing them to same sex marriage is not the solution."
I'm a little bit confused with you here, John. What do you mean by "exposing" children to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage, after all, is readily available in a few states and countries. Isn't it learned about in schools because it exists? Will you not "expose" your children to war even though it exists in history and in present day? I'm rather on the fence about same sex marriage but I do believe there is a very big difference between "exposing" a child to something in school that exists and they are going to learn about one way or another down the road anyways versus "promoting" it.
Ross: but If youre in the business of selling guns, then you really have to have the knowledge that you are probably going to sell a gun to a murderer at some point in your life...
Exactly. When someone enters a profession, they have to accept some responsibility for the various people they're going to end up dealing with.
There was an incident a number of years ago where a transgender woman was critically injured in a car crash. When the responding EMT discovered her male genitals, he stopped treating her and instead laughed and taunted her.
She later died at the hospital.
Is that what we really want to mean by exercising "religious freedom?"
Marie, whether or not someone is picked at is not at issue. People are picked on, ostracized, made fun of etc for any reason under the sun.
My point was that this is a poor representation of Christian thought if that's what you were trying to make. Christian belief is not about the person, but about the choice of action. Sins are evil and wrong, not people.
The distinction is one that homosexual activists love to muddy the waters with. Rejecting the lifestyle is in no way the same as rejecting the person. That was one of Christ's major themes.
So just to be clear Marie, you are saying that if you sold guns, and believed murder was wrong, you would sell a gun to someone you believed to be a murderer? And that would be ok with you?
See there's this little problem with integrity there.
Choose any application you want if you don't like guns, try animal rights. If you ran a pet store and recognized a customer who frequents your shop featured in an online exposé on crush videos, horribly maiming and torturing animals, would you sell them a kitten?
Vargas, not to speak for Marie, but I don't think that is what she is saying at all. I think she is merely bringing to light the lack of integrity in people and their beliefs in that religious conservatives will often times refuse to do something because "it goes against their beliefs", such as refusing to photograph a lesbian couple at their commitment ceremony, while still photographing a couple where the man has been divorced three times, is an adulterer, etc. even though I'm sure all of those qualities are "against their beliefs" as well.
On that note, I will have to say, that I personally belief that the decision in New Meixco was absolutely ludicrous. People should not be REQUIRED to perform a service at their own discretion (especially when the service is a luxury service--such as photography, which is not "required" at a commitment ceremony). In which case, I would hope that, instead, the New Mexico couple would merely go find another photographer to take the pictures (trust me, there are plenty)..or if a pastor refuses to perform a commitment ceremony or marriage, then go find another who will (trust me, there are plenty of those as well)....Why not take your business to someone who appreciates and reward THEM and let people who refuse such business with a big hole in their pocket and plenty of time to mull their decision over?
Vargas said: "Choose any application you want if you don’t like guns, try animal rights. If you ran a pet store and recognized a customer who frequents your shop featured in an online exposé on crush videos, horribly maiming and torturing animals, would you sell them a kitten?"
In all fairness...like what Ross said...It's the same as the gun analogy though..if you are in the pet selling business you must know that at some point in time you are going to sell a kitten to a family who will abuse it, neglect it, give it away etc....not every kitten being sold is going to a perfect caring loving family
Ross said:
"I do believe there is a very big difference between “exposing” a child to something in school that exists and they are going to learn about one way or another down the road anyways versus “promoting” it."
Marriage means more than whatever SSM means.
If a merger is imposed, then, there is much about marriage that would be deemed bigoted on par with racism. That is not a lesson that should be taught to school children by the government. But that is precisely what the SSM campaign is promoting. And tha it is doing so even before a merger is imposed is a harbinger not an excuse.
Marie said:
"he stopped treating her and instead laughed and taunted her"
Are you now equating a life and death emergency with, say, a fertility service? Why would you choose to catastrophize?
Perry and Ross,
I didn't read Vagras as talking about playing the odds blindly or otherwise.
Selling a gun to a person known to you as a murderer would be on the very dark side of a grey ethical issue, would you not agree?
Chairm: "That is not a lesson that should be taught to school children by the government. But that is precisely what the SSM campaign is promoting. And tha it is doing so even before a merger is imposed is a harbinger not an excuse."
I am not quite following your logic here. In Massachussets, for example, marriage equality is taught in schools because it exists in the state. It exists, therefore it is taught.
To my knowledge, and feel free to prove me wrong if I am wrong, same sex marriage is not taught in states where it does not exist. Same sex relationships are taught about because they exist in every state. They exist, therefore they are taught. I do not understand how you can draw a direct correlation from something being taught to something being promoted.
Chairm said: Selling a gun to a person known to you as a murderer would be on the very dark side of a grey ethical issue, would you not agree?
Well, to further muddy the grey waters...performing a marriage on a heterosexual couple where the man has been divorced twice before is also a dark side of a grey ethical issue as well, isnt it?
I think the point Im trying to make is everything is grey...very few things are morally black and white
Statistically speaking is different than having actual knowledge. I don't think offering a little money turns anyone into your coerced servant.
If you don't want to sell a gun to a murderer, you should be able to refuse that association.
If you don't want to sell a kitten to a sadist, you should be able to refuse that association.
Freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, all of those freedoms trump, or ought to trump, the right of a sadist or a murderer to force you to accommodate their evil actions just because you're a business owner.
Those would be conscience laws and nationally they include provisions for doctors who would rather not perform abortions etc. This sort of thing happens all the time. It's a shame that people feel they must force their godless view of morality on someone else.
Obama rescinded conscience law enforcements. Secular facism? Why not allow people to be free to choose?
Perry, selling a gun to someone you know is a murderer does not qualify as a light shade of grey.
Your remark about remarriage doesn't detract from the legitimate point made by Vargas. Indeed, now you seem to agree with that point.
Perry said: "Brad said: “Tens and tens of thousands of children have been adopted by same-sex couples”
Perry refined his assertion: "65,000 adopted children being raised by same-sex parents in the United States"
It is far less than that. The CCN reported on speculation. The estimate probably includes padding from second-parent adoption.
I'll explain below, but the short story is that based on Census and related data there may be about 12.5 thousand adopted children living in same-sex households; and relatively few of these children would have been adopted by "same-sex couples".
In any case, same-sex couples are not the saviors of the foster care system which has other areas for improvement that would make a much greater impact. There are better options for foster children including the removal of obstacles in the recruitment of married adoptors. The fostercare system ought not to be transformed into an affirmative action program for same-sex couples.
* * *
The 65,000 estimate is not an estimate of children "adopted by same-sex couples". Adoptions by "couples" of the same sex are generally not possible. Adoption by an individual is available in most places; second-parent adoption is available as well, but not everywhere.
Since about half of same-sex households include individuals who had been previously married (i.e. in husband-wife unions) and the vast majority [about 85%] of children residing in same-sex households are from such marriages, it is reasonable to expect that there would be a lot of second-parent adoptions amongst the adoptions in such households. Hence my remark about the padding.
Anway, there are red flags in the report.
The author began with the Census estimate of the total number of adopted children living in the United States. [1.6 million].
The report used an estimate of "gay and lesbian households" [3.1 million] that is more than 5 times greater than that reported by the Census count of "same-sex households" [less than 600 thousand].
That should be your first red flag.
"Same-sex household" is a different category from "gay and lesbian household."
And both categories are different from gay and lesbian individuals. The number of same-sex households is far smaller than the number of individuals in the latter category.
For example, the openly homosexual adult population has been estimated by the HRC to be 5% of the general adult population. That's about 11 million people. The Census reported less than 1.2 million individuals residing in same-sex households [less than 600 thousand] which translates into just 10% of the adult homosexual population; in other words, 90% of openly homosexual adults in the country do NOT reside in same-sex households.
Nonetheless, the author of the report used an adoption rate of 1.6% "based on same-sex unmarried partner households with an adopted/foster children under age 18 living in the household."
Another red flag.
Foster children are not adopted children. These are two different categories. But that is a fairly minor quibble.
More importantly, the report extrapolated by applying the same rate of adoption in "same-sex households" to the larger number of "gay and lesbian households." That is a big and speculative assumption built into the calculations. Hence the additional padding that may have occured.
Anyway, 1.6% of the same-sex households [less than 600 thousand] translates into under ten thousand households [9.6 thousand].
Then the author applied an average of 1.3 adopted children per "same-sex household" adopted (and fostered) children.
Anothe red flag much like the previous one. The "same-sex household" category is different from the "gay and lesbian household" category. The average is probably padded; it is certainly speculative.
Anyway, this average [1.3 children per household] translated into about 12.5 thousand adopted children living in same-sex households.
Given that adoption by couples of the same-sex is generally not available, only small portion of this adopted child population in same-sex households would have been adopted by "same-sex couples".
Perry, you were close, but not quite right.
The report also estimated that of the total population of adopted children in the USA, 4.5% resided in "gay and lesbian households"
However, 12.5 thousand adopted children living in same-sex households translates into less than 1% of the total population of adopted children in the country.
And of the 10% of openly homosexual adults living in same-sex households, about 30% live with children.
In other words, 97% of the gay and lesbian population does NOT reside in same-sex households with children resident.
And of those who do, the vast majority of the children are from the previously procreative relationships (usually marriages) of one of the adults in the same-sex relationship. These children already have the protections accorded children of divorce and estranged parents.
Indeed, the presumption of paternity extends to their parents, regardless of sexual orientation. That is an overflow effect of the core meaning of marriage which, sadly, SSM argumentation would deeply discount or negate entirely.
Chairm, I agree that I mispoke and perhaps should have said that there are tens and tens of thousands of children being parented by same-sex couples instead of using the word "adopted" by..which is tricky indeed.
However
There is a huge flaw in your reasoning because you are comparing an estimate report from 2007 with a census report from 2000 (which, regardless, is not 100 percent accurate because it does not accurately count all same-sex households).
We now live in 2009. A lot can change in 9 years...if you look at the 1990 census vs the 2000 census ( again, neither of which accurately count same-sex households)..the numbers, regardless, increase DRAMATICALLY. In 2000 no state had gay marriage. As of today 6 do,, and I believe it is safe to assume that as homosexuality has become more visible and understood over the past 9 years the number of same-sex parental households has increased dramatically as well.
The SSM campaign now seems to be promoting a novel concept that all americans are entitled to equal application of the law or equal protection under the 14th amendment of the US constitution regardless of ones own strongly held belief or religious view for or against SSM.
I don't think it matters where children in a same-sex household came from: previous marital relationship, test tube, whatever. The point it, children benefit from having the two adults in a relationship be married, because marriage is a foundational institution in this country, and solidifies a relationship.
Perry, the report you cited used the Census data to which I referred.
The participation rates in SSM are very, very, very low and declining.
The count of same-sex households is of a broader category than SSM but even at that, the participation rates are very, very, very low.
The SSM campaign, and gay identity politics, is prone to exagerations based on self-serving assumptions that inject bias into the estimates. It is not unusual for people to make the same errors you did, for example, when citing these pro-SSM statistics. Your remark shows a misunderstanding of the 1990 to 2000 Census data, for eample.
* * *
Jeffrey, but marriage is the union of husband and wife and that is what makes it foundational. SSM is sex segregative. It is not foundational to civilization.
Marriage integrates fatherhood and motherhood, also foundational, whereas SSM, when children are involved, segregates fatherhood from motherhood.
It does matter whence children are attained. As I said, the vast majority in same-sex households have both mom and dad; and they have the protections of children of divorce and estrangement. Their parents have their parenal status protected by the presumption of paternity -- based on the opposite-sexed essentials of human procreaton -- derived from previously procreative relationships (man and woman).
SSM argumentation points outside of marriage when it points to children.
john, there is a wide range of types of nonmarital relationshps and kinds of nonmarital living arrangements. Within the nonmarital category, the SSM campaign seeks to elevate a subset above the rest -- based on gay identity politics.
Why is that, do you think? Are some more equal than others according to SSM argumenation? Looks like it.
Chairm: Within the nonmarital category, the SSM campaign seeks to elevate a subset above the rest — based on gay identity politics.
I keep trying to understand where you're coming from... so is it:
1) SSM isn't really "marriage" since it's not based on procreation, or the encouragement of responsible parenting for biological children? So SSM isn't really part of any "foundation" of society and is really just a type of living arrangement or partnership?
2) Since SSM is then non-marital, it falls into the same pool as other living arrangements (can you name some examples though?) which are better protected through their own rules and regulations?
3) Being part of that larger pool of non-marital categories, it's unfair for SSM advocates to want to break off on their own and assimilate into the marriage category? And that "gay identity politics" is what's driving that desire?
Chairm,
The importance to society of marriage, particularly where children are involved, is to keep the adults in the household together in their commitment, as well as mutually owned property. The benefit to children is this security, whether the married couple created the children or not. Witness that stepchildren benefit when the divorced or widowed parent they live with marries a new spouse: a more secure relationship is created. If that parent just co-habitated with a new partner, the children are less secure.
Chairm, in 1964 Loving vs Virginia, a black and white couple sought to "elevate their interracial subset above the rest" based on the racial politics of the day. The US supreme court reading between the lines in the US constitution, found a fundamental or basic right to marriage for every human being. Equal protection for all people. Some silly wording about every citizen has equal access to marriage rights. Even prisoner politics enters into this, where some states said "no" to their right to marriage, later upheld by the US supreme court. The problem appears to be that the constitution does not single out gays and lesbians or christians for that matter, to "this group" or "that group" is not entitled to marriage. Sexual orientation at the present time, apparently is no "constitutional basis" to "not" offer privileges all citizens enjoy.
Don't you think most people can differentiate between interracial marriage and SSM? One involves a man and a woman, which have always been understood as basic to a marriage, and one does not.
If supporting traditional marriage were tantamount to bigotry along the lines of refusing interracial marriage, how do you account for our minority vote in CA on Prop 8?
No matter how you slice it, you can't get around the fact that motherhood and fatherhood matter. Two women cannot provide fatherhood and two men cannot provide motherhood.
That's not bigotry, that's just obvious. People don't want to have to change the meaning of family if it means implicitly denying the importance of having a mother and a father.
The idea that it only takes two people parenting doesn't wash with another sad fact of American life- fatherlessness. There are so many programs aimed at helping fathers be good fathers and helping the fatherless, because of the negative fallout for children without a dad. And yet some people would ignore that and purposely deny children fathers. That doesn't make sense.
Marie, ask yourself, what is it about gay marriage that makes it gay or that makes it marriage?
In other words, distinguish this arrangement from the rest of the nonmarital arrangements. Can you? Can those who strongly support SSM?
Usually the answers that come back offer no such distinctions.
* * *
John,
SSM would not create the direct child-parent relationship that would be possible with adoption.
Since the vast majority of children residing in same-sex households already have two parents (either mom or dad is not resident), they would not qualify for adoption.
Third party procreation is extramarital even when married people use it. So that points outside of marriage.
Adoption does not bestow marital status, but providing the integration of fatherhood and motherhood through marital status is a legitimate factor in priotization of pools of adoptors.
Anyway, both 3rd party procreation and adoption come with at least two prerequisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to assign a replacement adult. For one-sexed arrangements, the other factor is the deliberate segregation of fatherhood and motherhood.
These factors, taken together, amounts to the virtual inverse of the core meaning of marriage: 1) provision for responsible procreation, 2) integration of the sexes, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution) that is foundational to civilization.
When it comes to social stability, and to the encouragement of the best interests of children, the societal preference is naturally for marriage -- the union of husband and wife. This is so for procreative relationships and for adoptive relationships.
The one-sexed scenarios are exceptions and there is no good reason to treat them as the basis for general rules and as the basis for preferential status. This is so regardless of sexual orientation. Exceptions ought to remain exceptions rather than remaking the general, useful, coherent rules that exist.
The question of stability reaches beyond the narrow view of SSM argumentation and its insistance on emphasizing sexual orientation.
* * *
John, the assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics is closely analogous with the supremacy asserted in the name of racist identity politics.
Marriage unites the sexes, regardless of "race" and regardless of sexual orientation.
The racist system insisted on so-called race criteria; gay identity politics of our time insists on a sexual orientation criterion.
But the marriage law has no such sexual orienation criterion -- not for eligibility and not for ineligibility. At least with the anti-miscegenation system there were actual criteria based on the fallacy of subpsecies of the one human race.
But humankind is essentially two-sexed; human procreation is opposite-sexed; and human community is both-sexed. Marriage arises from this -- regardless of race and regardless of sexual orientation.
On the other hand, SSMers will deride the core meaning of marriage because they would equate sex-segregation with sex-integration; and they would derided marriages that combine sexual orientations as "shams".
By seeking to abolish definitive legal requirmeents SSMers want to bring sex-segregation under the legal auspices of the foundational social institution that integrates the sexes; and, socially, they would also loudly land insistently favor segregation based on sexual orientation.
Marriage is neutral on race and on sexual orientation. So is the marital presumption of paternity. Marriage unites humankind but SSM seems to be about dividing humankind.
Pressing identity politics into the marriage law, and into constitutional jurisprudence, is unjust -- now as it was then.
The question for me, is what and where are the facts? Where do our courts go to make a reasoned determination? Do we just leave the decision to the "will of the people?" More simply do we let two wolves and a lamb vote on "what to have for lunch" and call it a day?
Jurisprudence is often used to separate opinion from fact. Peer reviewed main stream scientific research is often used as the standard for factual information.
An abundance of evidence and research, confirms and supports the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.
But what happens when when my reasoned opinion says otherwise? Should we then use the voting booth to amend our state constitutions? In California we can, but the federal constitution has this pesky little problem of equal protection or application of the law for every human being. Convicted child molesters, rapists, murderers and horrific crimes of domestic violence will not obviate civil marriage rights. Do we ignore the effects on families in these cases because they are heterosexual?
We must use a higher standard than strongly held opinion or religious belief. Courts using this standard, come to the following conclusion in their jurisprudence "The preservation of traditional marriage could only be a legitimate reason for the
classification if expanding marriage to include others in its definition would undermine the
traditional institution. Folks objecting to SSM simply fail to explain how the traditional
institution of civil marriage would suffer if same-sex civil marriage were allowed. There is no
legitimate notion that a more inclusive definition of marriage will transform civil marriage
into something less than it presently is for heterosexuals."
What causes this failure to explain? This is where the analysis needs to begin, "Why does one fail to explain?" Why is opinion and strongly held religious belief not sufficient?
Any Bible-based reason for opposing SSM is irrelevant unless and until all persons, regardless of sexuality, are forced to live biblically. Whatever biblical basis of outlawing SSM should also be applied to adultery and divorce. Only when we decide that the entire country, and not just gay people, must live by biblical rules may the Bible be used selectively against gay people.
john: “The preservation of traditional marriage could only be a legitimate reason for the classification if expanding marriage to include others in its definition would undermine the traditional institution.
But then I ask myself, should we drop the "must be a veteran" requirement to allow non-vets access to the perks provided by the Veteran's Administration? Veterans would still receive benefits as they did before, we'd be just providing "equal access" to it for everyone now. And since the benefits are "veteran neutral," why limit them to vets?
But just as the VA focuses on protecting people who have gone through a specific type of struggle, doesn't marriage seek to do the same?
OSM doesn't specifically ban gays from marrying, it just contains a requirement gays understandably don't find very appealing. It may be discriminatory in the sense that it has a focus, but it's not bigoted.
So I keep wondering: isn't the male/female relationship, and it's potential consequences (biological reproduction) the very "struggle," the very relationship that marriage was intended to regulate?
Or has so much time passed, and marriage is so common and taken for granted anymore that it's only focus now is on the civil benefits and the "commitment" aspect of couples?
John, you can look at the statistics and come to a different conclusion. The gay lifestyle isn't happy or healthy or long termed. Especially male gay relationships.
SSM wants everyone to look at the apples and oranges and conclude that they're really both the same for making pie. They're fundamentally different.
ladyk, you offer a very well thought out opinion, but broad and general statements have been [after careful and detailed analysis] determined to be only "opinion' by several state supreme courts. The AMA, APA, LCSW and many main stream organizations use a standard called peer reviewed research [also used by the courts]. This higher standard, requires unbiased evidence and solid proof that the sky is falling or will fall, vs. opinion based on junk science [e.g. intelligent design as determined by the pennsylvania courts].
The "must be a Veteran requirement" does not seem [at least to me] much different than must be employed by "xyz" company in order to receive their health benefits.
You do point out a serious flaw in the way our legal system looks at an issue, in that courts ONLY look at the "issue at hand or in front of them." Our legal systems refuses to look at slippery slope arguments like the Veteran Benefit issue, or SSM will lead to people marrying their hamsters, cats, dogs, ducks or 20 wives and the sky is or will fall.
So then, when courts only focus on the issue in front of them, leaving out slippery slope arguments, personal opinion and strongly held religious beliefs (for or against SSM], we are left with: "There is no legitimate notion that a more inclusive definition of marriage will transform civil marriage into something less than it presently is for heterosexuals.”
I think arguments about whether marriage "deteriorates" or not if same-sex couples can marry are irrelevant. I'm a lot more concerned with degradation of the law if we choose to ignore our principle of Equal Protection in favor of a "tyranny of the majority" mentality.
No one's really concerned about "protecting" marriage as an institution, given the far more serious (and perfectly legal) threats of adultery and divorce.
"Most of the researchers involved in the study of homosexually-parented children are self-proclaimed pro-homosexual parenting researchers," Hansen told WND. "Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc.
"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.
Policymakers need that information to make reasonable policy, too.
"The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare roles. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them," her report said.
"Homosexuals, and others who support their cause, understandably desire social and legal acceptance of their lifestyles and partnerships. One of the methods for achieving that goal is to convince the public that homosexual parenting isn't detrimental to children. Concealing and/or downplaying research findings which reveal that children raised by homosexuals are different in fundamental ways from other children, is part of that socio-political agenda intended to sway voters and judges," she said.
Hansen suggested all scientists have biases – especially when such an "emotionally-charged" issue is at hand.
But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, "they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings," she wrote.
"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said. "No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children."
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html
Jeffrey, just because you don't care about the deterioration of marriage doesn't mean others don't.
If you aren't interested in marriage preservation, then why do you want it? Just to have society's stamp of approval?
John, what scientific peer reviewed studies did the APA use when they unilaterally decided to remove homosexuality and pedophilia from the abnormal category?
Recent changes in the APA's diagnostic manual may have encouraged pedophile advocates.
In an earlier version of the diagnostic manual (DSM-III) , the American Psychiatric Association contended that merely acting upon one's urges toward children was considered sufficient to generate a diagnosis of pedophilia.
But then a few years later, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type of pedophile. NARTH brought that DSM shift to public attention.
The APA stated categorically that it had, in fact, no intention of normalizing pedophilia. However, "man-boy love" advocates cheered the DSM shift as good news, and a door appeared to be opened, because soon afterward, a major journal published a pedophile-friendly meta-analysis of the evidence surrounding the effects of, in particular, homosexual pedophilia.
After that version of the DSM was issued and before the next one appeared, an event occurred which may have encouraged the psychiatric association to rethink the effects of its shift in diagnostic criteria. "The political storm of the century" hit the field of psychology. According to the March 2002 issue of the Psychological Association's official journal, the American Psychologist, that storm hit "with gale-force winds raging from the media, congressional leaders, states legislatures, and conservative grassroots organizations."
The fiasco the Psychological Association was referring to had followed its own publication of a controversial study by Rind, et al. which concluded that man-boy, "consensual" sexual relationships were not necessarily harmful and might even be positive. The Rind study marked the first time, the APA said, that it had been called into the public arena to defend publication of a study.
After a public apology of sorts--followed later by another statement which sounded a bit like backpedaling (insisting that researchers had a right to scientific freedom) the Psychological Association issued a new and quite surprising official statement.
APA said that no matter what the research showed either way about the psychological effects of pedophile relationships--pedophilia remained, in its opinion, "morally" wrong.
Morally wrong?
Even so-called "official" organizations are biased.
Ray, I could probably provide a sampling of the studies from Hooker and others, but you can check out the APA website for yourself. These main stream peer reviewed studies that courts use [see apa.org] show that:
"Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
Now if you have equally solid research, showing different findings, courts will always do their independent research and fact finding.
So far courts determine that:
"An abundance of evidence and research, confirms and supports the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.”
If there is some study or research that should be considered, why are the folks arguing against SSM not getting their points across before the court. Do they need different presenters?
John, none of this is based in fact.
1. the APA is thoroughly discredited as to it's impartial and scientific "position" on homosexuality. It was a political move that initiated the flip, not science. They took a vote. That's it.
2. not every court is interested in impartiality or takes the time to go through studies. Many do. In fact, most courts that have weighed this subject have found the balance swings in favor of the welfare of children and families on the marriage question. Only a well publicized few have not.
John, I've stated the facts both of the marrige law and of the social institution of marriage which is recognized by the law.
You may not like these facts but facts are stubborn things.
SSM means less than marriage. It cannot provide all that marriage provides to society.
* * *
When SSMers cite the statements of groups like the APA et al, they are citing political opinions, not facts. So recasting such citations as pointing to peer-reviewed facts does a disservice by misrepresentation.
* * *
John, I have discusssed your opinion of SSM -- and have discussed that sort of opinion with other SSMers -- and your own argumentation fails to standup to your own stated standards.
I have used standards that your own argumentation has touted. And the result is that your opinion has not withstood scrutiny.
I've used the same stated standards when discussing the profound flaws of court opinions that favored SSM. When an SSMer points to such opinons and declares these settle the matter, they point to the abuse of judicial review which is amounts to "because I say so".
And that pretty much is what the APA et al have done, as well.
SSM argumentation is based on a very narrow view of marriage -- one which cuts away from marriage anything that does not fit the sex-segregative arrangement that SSMers have in mind.
Marriage means more than what SSMers have insisted SSM means. I take them at their word on this.
As should we all. They mean what they say when they disparage the core meaning of marriage as being superflous to the special status that the social institution merits in society.
Ray,
Ray, This is my understanding of the APA's position on pedophilia..[apa.org]
"We do not support the "normalization" or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."
Regarding NARTH, Do they use the peer review process for research or just pay to publish? The APA press release about NARTH
"For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been thathomosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concernabout the position’s espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that theyare not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically soundevidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positionsespoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudiceand discrimination can flourish"
John, quoting some un-named court opinion (which he presented as being the opinon of multiple courts):
“An abundance of evidence and research, confirms and supports the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.”
Abundance of evidence?
Tell me, John, in the study (or studies?) referenced in that court's opinion, what is the total number of chldren raised from birth by same-sex couples?
And please cite the longitudinal parameters of that study (or studies?) -- for example how many children were followed for say a 10-20 year period?
Abundance is an exageration.
Also, do you know what "confirms" means in a social scientific context? Do you?
To say that the paultry evidence confirms anything of the sort is an other exageration.
It is also far-fetched to declare that there is abundant research, much less abundant evidence, that supports, much less confirms, that the segregation of fatherhood from motherhood serves the best interests of children.
Of course, the statement you quoted drops the standard from best interests of children to "interests of children". Why the lower standard, do you think?
John, you're conveniently skipping over the fact that the APA's position has nothing to do with hard research like you think it does.
John, you're also skipping over the fact that most courts looking at the same sets of evidence do not find the things Massachusetts, California and Iowa courts found.
If all is impartial, how do you explain the discrepancy?
Ray says:
"John, you’re conveniently skipping over the fact that the APA’s position has nothing to do with hard research like you think it does."
What "hard research" is required to determine that homosexuality is not a disease or pathological? Ask a few questions and you can get a suitable answer. Does being homosexual create a degraded living experience? Does being a homosexual result in, say, a shorter lifespan? Can homosexuals function in society? Is it possible or even necessary to "treat" homosexuality, and what would be the outcome after treatment?
I think you could approach "being left-handed" in the same common sense way.
Jeffrey, so you agree that the APA has no scientific basis and offers no more than a well dressed opinion?
Jeffrey: Does being homosexual create a degraded living experience? Does being a homosexual result in, say, a shorter lifespan? Can homosexuals function in society? Is it possible or even necessary to “treat” homosexuality, and what would be the outcome after treatment?
Which is why I hate it when people get lost in the whole "Is it a choice? Or it is a natural variation?" debate, as the underlying assumption that drives the questioning is that it's sick and immoral somehow.
But no one ever stops to think, "Hey waitasec... do we even NEED to be asking those questions?"
So you are saying John, that all this hard evidence came out and that is what they based their decision on. That's nothing short of laughable. Read your history. Nothing of the sort happened.
They made a political decision, took a vote, that's how they came up with the idea that homosexuality wasn't really abnormal after all.
While being an interesting bit of history, their positions amount to not much more than a cruel hoax.
Rally in Albany!
Nearly 1,000 marriage advocates gathered on the Capitol steps in Albany, N.Y., today to support the state laws defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The rally came one day after two Democrats in the state Senate switched their party affiliation as the debate over a same-sex "marriage" bill escalated. Republicans now control the Senate, which wraps up this legislative session in eight days.
Leading the rally were Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action; Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition.
"Yesterday, we were thinking we needed to come up here and make a strong push so gay 'marriage' would not be passed," said Valerie Case, a reporter at WMHR in Syracuse. "Today, it looks like it may not even be an issue. However, we know in New York that may not last long."
Josh Griffin, who participated in the rally, said he can see God at work.
“First of all, God ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and it's important to keep it that way," he said. "Also, I believe it (same-sex 'marriage') has ramifications for our liberties here in the United States.”
John,
Most interesting is the assertion that " We must use a higher standard than strongly held opinion or religious belief" for those that support traditional marriage. Did not the framers of the Constituion, particularly the Bill of Rights, have strong opinions or religious beliefs that led them to pen what they did? How are we any different in that regard? Also, to what standard do we use then? The courts? Peer -reviewed research? Opinion poll? Next Tuesday? The point being, we can come up with any standard to satisfy our whim.
Much like how carmakers manipulate data to say they are the #1 car in America, have the best gas mileage, etc., we do the same with the SSM debate. Research on both sides of the argument point to conflicting, non-conclusive results, that are "spun and massaged" in favor of our conviction. If we strip away the basis for the debate, then what are we clamoring about for then? Just to be heard, or is there an underlying reason why any of us defend our position, whatever it might be, as we do?
Marie said "Which is why I hate it when people get lost in the whole “Is it a choice? Or it is a natural variation?” debate, as the underlying assumption that drives the questioning is that it’s sick and immoral somehow.
But no one ever stops to think, “Hey waitasec… do we even NEED to be asking those questions?”
------
Marie, I could not have said it better myself. Human beings may be incredibly intelligent, but one of their biggest downfalls is their need to over analyze and categorize EVERYTHING. Right/wrong. Good/evil.
Some things really just are the way they are.
John,
I would contend there is a better way to see things. But, then again, you do not want to hear any arguments based on moral/religious convictions.
Perry,
Well said. Some things just are. All the more reason to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
John said: "I want to hear this specific argument from the courts"
The court opinions that have favored SSM have clearly indicated that SSM means less than marriage. It is a premise of the pro-SSM reasoning used by plaintiffs as well.
It is sadly ironic that the SSM campaign insists that anything less than marriage is not good enough.
* * *
Jeffrey said: "you could approach “being left-handed” in the same common sense way"
The human form includes a right hand and a left hand, not two left hands.
* * *
Marie said: "do we even NEED to be asking those questions?"
SSM argumentation emphasizes sexual orientation -- homosexuality in particular -- but that is not in the marriage law. But SSMers want to hold fast to that emphasis, then, they invite the sort of questioning and moral evaluation that you now suggest is unwarranted.
I'd rather stick with what marriage is but SSMers like to emphasize what they think marriage is not.
So their second emphasis is also questioned and discussed, at length.
In both instances, they tend to runaway from their own stated standards of argumentation.
And that raises a whole bunch of other questions and issues that also distract from the central question. That is, "What is marriage?"
* * *
John, you are misrepresenting the political statements by the APA and other organizations. These statements are not peer-reviewed and do not point to an abudnance of evidence on parenting that confirms what you claim.
That's a fact.
* * *
Perry said: "Human beings may be incredibly intelligent, but one of their biggest downfalls is their need to over analyze and categorize EVERYTHING."
Actually, marriage is a category. This is not a downfall of the marriage law. Also, analysis of the meaning of marriage is far more important than the SSM campaign's attempts to dismantle marriage into a bunch of incoherent bits and pieces.
* * *
John said: "Is their e a better forum that is not based on whims of the day?"
The wrong forum is a court that abuses judicial review. Such a court is based on the subjective bias of the judges. Their whim should not decide the cases brought forward.
You have pointed to the Iowa Court and yet that court's pro-SSM opinon (i.e. its reasoning) contradicts its own stated standards. Indeed, you agree with the conclusion even though it does not withstand the test of your own stated standards.
Your whim, John, or a judge's whim does not legitimize an abuse of judicial review.
John rather than elide could you attempt to answer?
JYou quoted an un-named court opinion (which you have presented as being the standard opinon of multiple courts):
“An abundance of evidence and research, confirms and supports the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.”
Abundance of evidence?
Tell me, John, in the study (or studies?) referenced in that court’s opinion, what is the total number of chldren raised from birth by same-sex couples?
And please cite the longitudinal parameters of that study (or studies?) — for example how many children were followed for say a 10-20 year period?
Abundance is an exageration.
Also, do you know what “confirms” means in a social scientific context? Do you?
To say that the paultry evidence confirms anything of the sort is an other exageration.
It is also far-fetched to declare that there is abundant research, much less abundant evidence, that supports, much less confirms, that the segregation of fatherhood from motherhood serves the best interests of children.
Of course, the statement you quoted drops the standard from best interests of children to “interests of children”. Why the lower standard, do you think?
Nicolas said: Perry,
Well said. Some things just are. All the more reason to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
-----
Or, realize that nothing in life SHOULD be truly defined. Everything should be fluid and open to change
Why, Perry? If nothing is defined, then that is chaos. There has to be certain parameters (guidelines) in which we are all subject to, otherwise, then the Holocaust can be seen as justifiable, which, of course, it is not.
Nicolas, but nothing should ever be set in stone. Do me a favor and define what "marriage" is and why it so sacred. Then do me a favor and ask yourself where that definition came from..or why that definition still stands, and it will be impossible to make any definition or claim without saying "because that's the way it always has been"...And I will agree with you..because that IS the truth, and that is the way it "always has been".
But that does not make it right..if we as human beings refuse to evolve, adapt, and be fluid with the changing of social situations we would be living like we were 2000 years ago. Im not promoting chaos. I believe strongly in guidelines. But they should not be set in stone. they should be fluid.
Perry,
If nothing is set in stone, then we have a constantly moving target that ever is beyond my grasp. Why try to reach for it then? And once I do, if ever, it (the target) changes again, and I am back to the ever fleeting task of cat and mouse.
I would never define marriage based on the assumption "that this is how it always has been" notion. My definition is more along the lines of, how we are created-as male and female. I mean, we are still male and female, right? If indeed we are still male and female and not some amalgam of the two, then why are we male and female?
I will agree, long-standing traditions doesn't necessarily make (whatever) right. Ask yourself this question, though. Why is (fill in the blank) a long standing tradition? How did it come about? Does it need changed to suit today? If so, why? To me, the fact that (whatever) is a long standing tradition says something as to the veracity of it being so. If the long standing traditon has stood the test of time (some will argue), then why change it?
Nicholas: My definition is more along the lines of, how we are created-as male and female. I mean, we are still male and female, right?
Well, the question now becomes...
Is marriage still about the struggles and consequences unique to committed male/female relationships?
Or has marriage "evolved" to be more of a state-granted benefits package for any two consenting adults?
Jeffrey said: “you could approach “being left-handed” in the same common sense way”
Chairm responded: “The human form includes a right hand and a left hand, not two left hands.”
Yes, and human couples come in male/female, male/male, and female/female form. It’s all perfectly natural, and evidently in God’s plan. So long as we all recognize the validity of these couples, then there is no rational reason to prevent some of them from having access to the legal rights and obligations of marriage. And when you factor in society’s preference for seeing children have their parents in a stable, married condition, it doesn’t take much thought to see how important it is to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples with children.
Jeffrey, your analogy is very distant and thus not a good analogy.
Not every combination of individuals fits the meaning of marriage. And that incudes man-woman combos.
Try as you might, you can't disguise your attempt to hide from the actual disagreement.
I'm not hiding from anything. I'm just recognizing that adults pair off in several different kinds of couples. The law gives committed couples certain rights and privileges, with no regard to gender. Therefore, there's no good reason to exclude any committed couple not otherwise prohibited. Gender alone is not a good determinant for marriage rights.
You never acknowledge any concern for the children of same-sex couples. Don't they deserve to have married parents?
Jeffrey: "You never acknowledge any concern for the children of same-sex couples. Don’t they deserve to have married parents?"
Agreed...yes, Chairm? Do these children need to be put back in foster care or orphanges? Are two dads worse than zero dads?
Marie,
Excellent questions. I had to give it some thought before responding because my answer could be miscontrued.
To reiterate: marriage, at the core, is the union of a husband (male) and wife (female) and is intended soley for this type arrangement. Civilization has litterally been built from the ground up with this premise in mind. Are there marriages that should never have taken place? You betcha! Is marriage intended for all couples (people)? Absolutely not! If that is the case, then, how is marriage any more fitting of SS couples if some OS couples need not apply?
Now to answer your questions. I would put myself in the first category, although, my understanding of marriage starts with God as the basis of/for marriage (He did establish marriage from the get go; some will argue). Nowadays, marriage is more of a business venture between the State and the husband/wife. If that is all marriage is, then, why not let more participate? I redirect you to the core of marriage-union of husband (male) and wife (female). Sanctioning any other relationship as marriage changes marriage, once again, at the core, by establishing new groundrules that no longer apply to the original intent-union of husband (male) and wife (female). Therefore marriage is no longer marriage, but some quasi-semblance thereof. A counterfeit, in other words.
Essentially, then, marriage hasn't changed at the core; just our perception of marriage. Therein lies the problem.
Jeffrey,
Explain to me how the various "forms" of "couples" are "evidentily in God's plan." Is it simply because "they are" or "occur?" I would hope a man of your intelligence would be able to give a more plausible reason than "just because."
Nicholas said: "Sanctioning any other relationship as marriage changes marriage, once again, at the core, by establishing new groundrules that no longer apply to the original intent-union of husband (male) and wife (female)"
The "core meaning" of voting in the US began by only allowing white males over 21 to vote. In fact, I can not think of a single civilization that initially allowed women the right to vote right off the bat. Did we not change the "core meeting" of voting? Nicholas, please explain to me how this is any different than marriage (WITHOUT using religious text as a fall back--we are founded ont he principle of separation of church and state, after all, arent we?)
Nicholas: Essentially, then, marriage hasn’t changed at the core; just our perception of marriage.
That perception may be the whole point though?
I think it was Chairm who pointed out that marriage is a social, public institution. The people basically decide what "marriage is" by how they view and participate in it.
And it just seems that the romantic, poetic notions of marriage being about the particular struggles that males and female go through together is becoming quaint and archaic.
The usual "pro" argument I hear is "Who cares? What does it matter to me?" In other words, as long as their taxes don't go up, this just isn't an issue. They don't care about romantic, abstract ideas of what marriage is or isn't.
And please, I don't mean to sound like I'm demeaning same-sex couples and the beauty and poetry of their relationships, nor do I want to prevent them from getting married.
But it does seem like the "perception" of marriage is or has evolved from it's "core" idea, to being more of a business contract between two committed people. The very thing NOM is trying to "protect" may have left the building already.
Ross,
I cannot and will not use religious texts as a "fall back" as you put it so eloquently. My "religious texts" are at the very basis for what I believe. I can do no other as a Christian. If I cannot use the basis of my stance, then will you give up yours too?
The comparison of voting to marriage is, at best, a mockery of marriage. To simply put this in "civil" terms simply misses the point-marriage goes to the core of who we are as male and female. In other words, marriage is more than just two people in a "loving, committed relationship" exchanging vows. If that is all it is, then game over. Marriage, embraces our uniqueness as male and female, and brings them into a unified whole. It celebrates the differences that exists between the two genders (male and female) and says, together by the grace of God, we can and will withstand. Essentially then, marriage underscores the relationship God has with His Creation by primarily, acknowledging God as Creator, and secondarily, we as male and female submit to His rule in our lives, individually and corporately.
The argument will be, look at all the bad marriages out there. How can allowing SS couples to participate make it worse, or change it? By nullifying the dynamic that can and only exists between male and female in marriage. Again, how does this (SSM) change anything? Or better yet, surely other type relationships have a uniqueness that would qualify as befitting to marriage. If that were so, then why aren't all relationships eligible for marriage?
Marie,
If "perception" is greater than reality, then why the pushback from OSMers? And if marriage is just a business venture, then a lot of people have gotten into the wrong business. The point being, marriage (please read post to Ross, if haven't), is the very basis by which we stand as a people (nation).
As to marriage being in constant flux, fluid (evolve)some would say, what is the next step in its evolutionary developement? Why would it stop at SSM? Surely there are other dimensions of marriage that haven't been "realized" yet, so tell me there is more beyond the horizon just waiting to be discovered?
Lastly, if marriage, like Elvis, "has left the building," then why do people still get married? Is their perception of marriage driving them to marry, or is there still something more to it, some underlying reason that people marry?
Jeffrey said:
" there’s no good reason to exclude any committed couple not otherwise prohibited."
So there's no good reason unless prohibited.
More circles.
I dunno, maybe you are sincerely saying that consent is the one and only criterion.
If so, then, you still invited the question -- consent to what?
Consent to marriage, of course. But what is marriage? You have yet to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.
Marital status! Sure, but that status based on a type of relationship which you have yet to distinguish except by repeatedly saying, marital status!
* * *
And Jeffrey I have commented about children living outside of marriage.
You keep emphasizing a small subset and seem oblvious to the rest.
Why is that?
Ross, why would you strike the pose of someone concerned about children when you insist, over and over, that marriage is not about children?
Marie, there are definitive legal requirements that have not left the building. In fact, these are the requirements that SSMers are trying very hard to chase from the building.
Chairm, I can see you’re struggling with the issue of consent. Try imagining that we’re talking about an opposite-sex couple, and what they are consenting to when they agree to get married. Traditionally, in our society, a man asks a woman to marry him. If the woman agrees, they have consented to marry. That means they will create a legal arrangement between the two of them that gives them specific rights and obligations, exclusive of all other people. If the woman says no, the couple can’t marry: you can’t marry someone against their will. The issue of consent remains the same regardless of the gender composition of the couple.
Can’t distinguish between marriage and non-marriage? Well, if you’re married, you possess a marriage license with your name and someone else’s name on it. You may have had a wedding or just appear before a magistrate for legal approval. If you do not possess a marriage license, and did not get pronounced “married” by a magistrate or religious figure, you are not married.
It saddens me that you have so little regard for children being raised by same-sex couples. I think these kids deserve to have the security of married parents, just like the children of opposite-sex couples should have. Just because there aren’t as many children in same-sex households as in opposite-sex households doesn’t make them second-class citizens.
Chairm: "Ross, why would you strike the pose of someone concerned about children when you insist, over and over, that marriage is not about children?"
Chairm, try answering the question that was asked for a change. Instead of always answering questions with other questions.
Consent to what?
Marriage!
What is marriage, Jeffrey?
Marital status!
You are pivoting in circles.
* * *
There are millions more children living in nonmarital families where there are also needs for protections. That portion of the child population is much larger and more diverse than your ideological emphasis on a tiny subset of that child population. Your pose is very much that of a gay identity hack.
Chairm, call me a "hack" if you like. Usually when the name-calling commences, it's a reflection of frustration. I'm sorry that you're frustrated that you can't make a convincing argument why same-sex marriage should be illegal.
I'm saddened that you consider the children of same-sex couples second-class citizens simply because they are a small minority. I don't think their numbers, or lack thereof, should be the determinant in what's best for them.
Ross your questions looked like rhetorical questions. That is you were making a statment, I thought, rather than asking for an answer.
You said:
"Do these children need to be put back in foster care or orphanges?"
Your imply that someone has argued in favor of taking children from their adoptive parents.
No one has.
You said:
"Are two dads worse than zero dads?"
You imply that someone has argued that a second dad negates the first dad.
No one has.
If you meant to ask a real question, rather than make a rhetorical statement, then, please elaborate. Thanks.
Jeffrey, your remarks are what they are. Whether or not you own your remarks, that's up to you.
Maybe it was out of frustration that you called people "un-American" and bigoted and so forth.
Of all the children living outside of marriage, you emhasize just those who serve your SSM argumenation's emphasis a particular identity group.
Please explain your emphasis instead of dodging, again. Why would you exclude the wide range of nonmarital families with similair needs?
Still waiting for an answer to comment #99, Chairm
Chairm says:
"Why would you exclude the wide range of nonmarital families with similair needs?"
What are you talking about? I said I agree with society's preference to see children raised by married adult couples. That's one reason I believe same-sex couples should be permitted in fact, encouraged, to marry: if they're raising children, those kids get the same benefit of marriage security that the kids of opposite-sex parents do. It's really quite simple, and it's completely in line with the thinking of family-friendly groups across the political spectrum.
Yes, I realize from your earlier posts that, as a small minority, the children of same-sex couples are second-class citizens. I'm hoping you'll reconsider that unfortunate point of view.
Ross, what #99?
Restate your question. I answered what I thought you meant to ask. Elaborate if you want to discuss further. Thanks.
Jeffrey, I did not ask about the subset you have in mind, but I did ask about the children in nonmarital families who also need the protections you are talking about.
* * *
Draw a circle. In that circle is the entire child population of the country.
Draw small circle within the first circle. That is the child population living in nonmarital families.
Draw a small third circle within the second circle. That is the child population residing in same-sex households.
Draw a tiny circle within the smaller circle -- about 1/20th the size of the fourth circle. That is the subset of the child population within same-sex households who were attained via third party procreation (extamarital procreation) or by adoption (not procreation).
It is this tiny subset that you are emphasizing in your remarks because the other children have the protections accorded to children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos.
SSM does not directly create the child-parent relationship at law. For that relationship there are at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment (or loss) and 2) government intervention to assign a substitute parent.
This is the virtual inverse of marriage. Your emphasis on this tiny subset of the children residing in same-sex households (that fifth tiny cricle) does not justify the change to marriage that you demand. In fact, your emphasis points outside of marriage.
You are talking about protections for childlren. Yet your remarks exclude all but that tiny subset.
Unlike the superficial thinking behind the bumpersticker "marraige equality", the basis for protection equality is not about encouraging nonmarital trends.
Calling nonmarriage marriage does nothing for children in families where there is need for protections. The need arises due to the lack of, or the deep diminishment of, sex integration and responsible procreation within the nonmarital arrangements. You argue against these definitive features of marriage so it is understandable that you hold an anti-marriage view.
Your view of SSM depends on peering through the lens of identity politics of the gaycentric variety. That, too, is very unfortunate. Pressing identity politics into marriage law was unjust when a racialist filter was used; and it would be unjust if a gaycentric filter was used.
Sorry, Chairm, for some reason my followup comment didnt go through. You were thinking that I was asking rhetorical questions...I will restate, and maybe add a word or two to make it more clear:
"… Do you think the children who live predominately in households with same-sex parents need to be put back in foster care or orphanges? Do you think two dads are worse than having zero dads?"
Asking for your personal opinion here. Not a statistic. Just a personal belief of what you think should be done with these kids.
Not to speak for Jeffrey, Chairm..but you said this:
"You are talking about protections for childlren. Yet your remarks exclude all but that tiny subset
Calling nonmarriage marriage does nothing for children in families where there is need for protections"
-----
I would beg to differ that marriage "does nothing" for these children..as many others have stated that marriage increases the chances a couple will stay together if they are raising children. So it does do "something"...what degree that "something" is remains to be seen.
Going with your "circles" analogy..I think the point is, that allowing marriage equality would "do something" for that small subset of children..and the point is, it does not do anything to hurt or harm all of the other circles. They are completely and totally unrelated, so they are unaffected (their parents are still legally married, living together, raising kids)--nothing changes in the dynamics of any of the other circles...., while that small circle is only benefitted. Not allowing marriage equality, only harms that small circle, and keeps them a voiceless minority. It's typical anti-marriage equality scare tactics to say that helping that small circle will somehow destroy all of the other circles via some crazy ripple-effect. But I assure you, after marriage equality passed in Massachussetts, all of the other heterosexual married parents woke up the next day, took their kids to school, and continued on with their lives as normal...their "circle" was not damaged.