NOM BLOG

It Could Have Been One Of Us, NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It could have been me or my staff. That crossed my mind when I learned the deeply disturbing breaking news:

The Family Research Council shooter told the FBI he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate group" designation on their website to ID and target his victims for a would-be mass murder rampage.

According to the Associated Press, the shooter "also planned to target other organizations that oppose gay marriage if he wasn't stopped. [...] In his pants pocket, police found a handwritten list of groups that also oppose gay marriage."

The brave security guard, Leo Johnson, a real hero, jumped the gunman after being shot, and saved the lives of countless decent, loving law-abiding Americans... but to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Leo's a hater in a hate group.

The SPLC, once a respected civil rights organization that targeted racist skinhead hate groups bent on dehumanizing their fellow Americans, has decided that it can use the same tactics against mainstream Christian conservative organizations.

So far, according to the Associated Press, the SPLC has refused to comment on what it now knows about the damage its hate list caused.

An innocent man was shot because a killer openly and admittedly used the SPLC's list to pick out and target his victims — and SPLC has no comment?

No comment on the chilling revelation that this disturbed man, inspired by the SPLC's hate group list, walked into FRC with 50 rounds of ammo and Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he intended to smear on the mouth of each of his victims!

SPLC and the Media Must be Held Accountable

Now, you know that NOM has not (yet) been designated a "hate group" by the SPLC, despite vast reporting to the contrary. But let me tell you that today that doesn't matter: today, we are standing with Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council demanding justice from the media and accountability from the Southern Poverty Law Center for their reckless disregard of truth and decency.

I know the SPLC will say it does not support using its hate group list for political assassination. But that's not good enough. The reason this disturbed shooter could use this list in this way is that the groups SPLC is targeting are not quasi-violent extremists wandering around in the woods with guns — but mainstream Americans with known offices in convenient locations, working democratically to support their views.

Let me make something clear here: I do not blame gay people for this shooting. Most homosexual people are law-abiding fellow citizens, equally appalled by violence.

I do blame the Southern Poverty Law Center for taking organizations of other decent, law-abiding fellow-citizens, and lumping them in with neo-Nazis, labeling them "hate groups," as part of a deliberate strategy to marginalize, stigmatize, and repress the speech and democratic rights of conservative Christians.

And I blame the media — for refusing to admit that SPLC's reckless rhetoric damages the moral credibility of the SPLC, and for continuing to take the organization's "hate group" designation seriously. Where there should be editorials denouncing this illegitimate tactic, instead we get articles that blindly repeat the "hate group" mantra.

That's why, yesterday, I called on the media to act responsibly:

For far too long, media outlets and reporters have allowed activist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to label opponents of same-sex ‘marriage' as ‘hate groups' and regularly describe organizations that hold traditional Judeo-Christian views of sexual morality as ‘anti-gay.' But words have consequences, and we know that allowing such inflammatory terms to be used in media reports describing those who object to redefining marriage can lead to harassment and even violence against members of those organizations.

We know of people who have had their jobs threatened or their families reviled by anonymous bloggers simply for posting words in opposition to gay marriage. The attempt to turn good people who support marriage as the union of husband and wife into pariahs, the target of hatred and harassment must end today!

We will not stop standing up for marriage, or working tirelessly to protect your rights to participate freely in our democratic process. An America where people have to be afraid to say what Genesis teaches — that marriage is the union of a man and woman ordained by God and oriented towards the next generation¬ — is not recognizably the America we cherish and love.

We will not give up until we see justice done: not just in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion.

Tony Perkins deserves great credit for standing bravely against this onslaught. I will stand with him, for God's truth, against all the lies and the hatred and the intimidation that they can send our way.

You Spoke, and the Boy Scouts of America Heard You!

Another piece of breaking news: The Board of the Boy Scouts of America has decided to delay its decision on whether to admit openly homosexual scoutmasters and scouts until May. Thanks to each of you who responded to our call to let the Board know that you do not want them to let money interests trump values.

The Human Rights Campaign's corporate network is now being deployed not to help gay people in the workplace, but to insist that this Judeo-Christian-based youth organization embrace homosexuality or else face financial punishment.

That's the world we live in: the world we must not take into our hearts, or respond to with hatred, but in which we must bravely, nobly, fiercely, and intelligently fight for what is right and true and good.

We may not win every battle, but we know Who wins in the end, don't we?

NOM's Peters on Crosstalk: Marriage is a "Life Saving Message" for the Next Generation

Let me end by giving you a glimpse of a next generation leader you ought to know and love: NOM's own Thomas Peters.

Here he is, the voice a new next generation of leaders who will not be silenced or intimidated, whose voice must and will be heard:

I'm so grateful to you for making NOM's work possible.

Stay strong, pray for Tony and all the staff at FRC — and pray that the hard hearts at SPLC and in the media will be melted.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

32 Comments

  1. Enver
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    I've heard that Walmart no longer supports gay friendly and starts doing things the right way check it out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/walmart-gay-funding-organizations-family-research-council-_n_2638148.html

  2. Teri Simpkins
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    The main reason any group is labeled a hate group by the SPLC is for efforts to dehumanize certain groups of people. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, LGBT people are still humans. You earn the label of hate group by your own actions.

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    Oh sure, Rich. Blame the victim. Liberals always do. This just goes to show that we are only free and have rights when we agree with everything the left says.

  4. Ash
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    I'm so thankful that Leo and the people he bravely protected are safe.

  5. Scott
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    I believe that civility on both sides will reduce tension. Nobody likes to be vilified by another person or group and once the to-and-fro of attacks gets started, it is hard to stop.

  6. flanoggin
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Of course this gunman was wrong wrong wrong. Let's blame him, not the SPLC----NOM does enough damaging work on it's own....no one needs to point this out. Without the SPLC designation, a hateful group is still a hateful group. Violence, though, is never the answer.

  7. Chairm
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Teri, we are all human beings. No one has denied that people who experience same-sex sexual attraction are human beings. On that basis your complaint is void.

    Meanwhile, NOM = National Organization for Marriage.

    And, SSM = Specious Substitution for Marriage.

    Favoring NOM over SSM is a legitimate choice given the very weak argumentation on offer from you and other SSMers, some far more intelligent and articulate than yourself.

    Disagreement with you and with the SSM idea is not hatred, even if you wish to smear those with whom you disagree. The reality is that your argumentation is very weak. That is not because of your faults, some SSMers are far more intelligent and articulate in their argumentation, but due to the weakness of the SSM idea in the first place.

    The marriage idea is far more substantial and it merits a vigorous defense against the wacky attacks of those who would rather demote marriage from its preferential status down to a barely tolerated status. The hate label that you use here, and have used to underlay your SSM argumentation, serves as cover but it shines a rather harsh light on your ways and means -- and the SSM idea ends up looking far less sparkly and bright and much more inflammatory and dark than you intended.

  8. Scott Rose
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    I don't advocate violence, but if Brian Brownstain slipped and broke his neck, I wouldn't shed any tears over that event either. NOMzis spread hateful lies against gay people, inciting their fellow bigots to shunning, discriminating against and even to violence against innocent gay people.

  9. flanoggin
    Posted February 9, 2013 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    SSM = Specious Substitution for Marriage.---um---yeah---no hate there....

  10. Maximus
    Posted February 9, 2013 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    @ Rich
    You are a shining example of the absolute worst the glbt mob has to offer.

  11. Posted February 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    NOM, I see a lot of attention paid to making sure you aren't called a hate group ... how about putting in just a fraction of that effort into making sure you actually are not a hate group?

  12. Chairm
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    flannogin, the imposition of the SSM idea is indeed the imposition of specious substitution for marriage.

    You might hate this fact. You might hate me for having pointing it out. You might hate the weak hand you have been dealt -- the SSM idea is very anemic and so its advocates rely on unreasoning obstinancy to push its imposition.

    In the first two points, who cares about your internal hatred for facts and public discourse of the facts? I do, when it spills out into law-making and government policy-making.

    On the third point, I empathize with SSMers (SSM supporters) who attack the coherency of the marriage idea and then turn around and discover that the SSM idea lacks coherency in the first place.

  13. Posted February 10, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I think if we've been gracious enough to allow an organization opposed to marriage equality to call themselves FOR marriage ... NOM, that is ... perhaps Chairm ought to be gracious enough to allow those in favor of marriage equality to decide for themselves what THEIR acronym stands for?

  14. Chairm
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Hey, let them decide and when they figure it out let them plainly state its meaning.

    Until then, the acronym is up for grabs. What is this weird notion of a group owning an acronym, anyway?

    Based on their argumentation and rhetoric, they propose an idea (the SSM idea) that is an outright rejection of the core meaning of marriage (the marriage idea). They'd gut marriage of meaning, appropriate the word, marriage, and claim that they get to decide its substituted meaning.

    Hence the acronym does mean the specious substitution for marriage. SSM is not a type of marriage. It is an example of identity politics running roughshod over the common and useful meaning of the word, marriage, and all that it entails.

  15. Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is an unconditional, life-long commitment between two persons who promise to share all of life and love, home and hearth, body and soul; marriage necessarily involves both the fullest of communication, the deepest of understanding, and the strongest of personal loyalty and trust between two people.
    ...
    through one another, each partner confronts the ultimate meaning of his/her life precisely by sharing life unconditionally with another person
    ...
    Marriage is exclusive in so far as everyone else is excluded from the innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners—no one else has access to the inner heart and mind, as well as the body, of the partner in exactly the same way. For this same reason, marriage is also inclusive because all of one's life—one's finances, career, leisure time, friendships, relationship to family friends, even one's other so-called soul-mates—must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment. Put differently, the whole of one's life, history, successes, failures, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows, are included in the relationship between two people.

    THIS is the core meaning of marriage. No part of this core meaning is rejected when the espoused are of the same-sex. N o gutting of the meaning, no misappropriation of the word marriage, no new meaning. The same meaning as it has always had, even after we allow others to participate that have traditionally been excluded.

  16. Posted February 13, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    SearchCz: You've just managed to defined the core meaning of "friendship". Ok, you didn't realize it. I know. But it points out how important it is for marriages to be friendships too. There are no rules against friendship.

    King David (Israel) experienced a friendship which he rated was even more pleasurable and synergic than marriage. Imagine, when, as King, he was able to marry rich, beautiful, virgin, ladies and have his pick of single, young women. As experienced as he was with the opposite sex, with polygamy legal (specially for a King to make alliances), he thought his same-sex friendship with the ex-King's son was in a way above marriage.

    So, we all search for compatible friendships. But that doesn't mean friendship needs to be regulated. Instead, some type of friendships (not those, for example, of two age 9 children) could "register" as such, and that could include blood-relations without a problem of incest.

    SSm advocates don't know it, but they've helped us see more clearly what marriage is and what marriage is not. In doing so, they serve a purpose to our society. Good.

  17. Posted February 13, 2013 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Little Man,

    While I agree that marriage is (or at least ought to be) a KIND of friendship, the point you miss is that the definition I offered describes the very special kind of friendship one shares only with a spouse.

    I think you must have missed a paragraph from my post. I wrote:

    Marriage is exclusive in so far as everyone else is excluded from the innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners—no one else has access to the inner heart and mind, as well as the body, of the partner in exactly the same way. For this same reason, marriage is also inclusive because all of one's life—one's finances, career, leisure time, friendships, relationship to family friends, even one's other so-called soul-mates—must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment. Put differently, the whole of one's life, history, successes, failures, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows, are included in the relationship between two people.

    You can have 100 friends, LM, because mere friendship does not demand that you exclude anyone else, nor does it demand that the whole of one's life be invested in that single friendship. Because marriage isn't just like every other kind of friendship - it is EXCLUSIVE and it is COMPREHENSIVE !

    What I offered was a description of the relationship between spouses. Coincidentally it fits equally well those who have children and those who do not. Just as it applies equally well to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

    The point is this: the relationships we're speaking of, same-sex partners wishing to marry, share all of the same essential characteristics of opposite-sex couples wishing to marry. Certainly same-sex couples have more in common with opposite-sex marriage candidates then they have in common with Friday night bowling buddies. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

  18. Posted February 14, 2013 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    SearchCz: Then, either you or i is intellectually dishonest, or both.

    But no friendship is "exclusive". If that were so, one could only have one friendship. Like i pointed out, in polygamous societies (e.g., Biblical) not even marriage is exclusive. USA has decided to optimize marriage as exclusive, forcing Utah to give up polygamy to join the Union.

    You say: "marriage. . .must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment." Who said it MUST be understood in that perspective - shine light unto it, if it helps. No. That's circular reasoning, not intellectual dishonesty. And circular reasoning is worse. You postulate a "must be". Neither marriage nor friendship "must" be understood through "commitment". In the era of 50% divorce, only you would base anything on untestable, unpredictable "commitment". . .

    Yes: "the whole of one's life, history, successes, failures, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows, are included in the relationship between two people. " Yes, that's a good friendship, one that goes beyond the level of love in marriage, in one King's opinion (and he had lots of experience).

    In the USA, you can certainly make friendship whatever you want, since the days of the lawrence vs. texas SCOTUS case. Within the privacy of your home or life, it can be the "innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners". But we are not interested what you do in your privacy; nor do we share what we do in ours; and since it is a private matter, it cannot possibly be an essential criterion for marriage or friendship.

    So, again, you define friendship, not marriage. Wanting to discuss same-sex marriage, you end up discussing the experience of a very close friendship, and we all agree with you it's great. But it will never be equal to marriage, only analogous, no matter how many States confuse equality with equivalence. Friendship does not have to be regulated, except perhaps registered voluntarily. On the other hand, it behooves government to save money by regulating opposite-sex marriage.

    Friendship can be superior, and freer than civil marriage. Civil marriage molds a marriage. A friendship can be what it wants to be, unless it becomes abusive, mental, etc. - then, the government has to interfere to avoid extreme violence.

    I don't have to pretend anything. You do.

  19. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:37 am | Permalink

    Well, Search, you tried but your description lacks a core.

    Please specify that part of your description that distinguishes the type of relationship you have in mind from all other types of relationships.

    The essential(s) without which that type of relationship would not be that type. And the essential(s) that are not present in any other type of relationship.

    Coherency depends on the core. The rest follows.

  20. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    By the way, no one-sexed scenario can become a comprehensive type of relationship.

    It lacks the bodily union of husband and wife. Now, bodily union is not sufficient for there is more to this type of relationship, however, without it the relationship is not comprehensive.

  21. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:46 am | Permalink

    The marital relationship's exclusivity is well-explained by its comprehensiveness. The SSM idea lacks this coherency.

    There is no reasonable explanation for limiting the one-sexed scenario to twosomes nor to pressing upon it a lifetime commitment on twosomes.

    Certainly there is no sexual basis at the core of what Search wrote (or copy-pasted).

    Meanwhile, the core meaning of marriage is integration of the sexes (the union of complementary sexes as per the bride-groom requirement), the provision for responsible procreation (the sexual basis of which is two-sexed and as such is procreative in kind), and these combined as a coherent whole that is greater than the sum of its parts (a foundational social institution of civil society that has a distinct moral reality independent of the government).

    The SSM idea lacks all of that. So it would gut marriage of its core meaning. And it would misappropriate the word, marriage, and its special status in our society. And it would inject a specious substitution into that gutted and hollowed word.

    The gay emphasis remains unjustified even with Search's attempt at a substituted meaning.

  22. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:04 am | Permalink

    The core meaning fits the marriage of the mother and father as well as the marriage of the childless husband and wife.

    It does not fit the one-sexed scenario -- a lone individual, a twosome, a moresome -- whether sexualized or not and whether gay or not. So what does not fit the limitations of the one-sex-short type of relationship or arrangement, well, that gets lopped off.

    This is how the SSM idea makes the marital relationship fit: it treats all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.

    It is about making marriage mean less and less until it is as meaningless as the SSM idea itself. That is how the false equivalence is supposed to transform the SSM imposition into "marriage equality".

    If Search thinks that same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior comprise the distinguishing feature, then, he needs to make the sound moral argument in favor of societal approbation of that essential of the type of one-sexed relationship he has in mind. If it is a neutral thing, then, it does not merit the special status he demands for it.

    In that case, it is not "same-sex marriage" but rather "the homosexual relationship" that he is really talking about. And that is not marital nor is it moral.

  23. Posted February 14, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Little Man,

    Sorry to say, you've misquoted me. I did not say that "marriage. . .must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment." So you refute what I did not write - not a very productive dialog.

    Thank you for noting that no friendship is exclusive. You're right to point out that we can have more than one friend. But In this day and age, we cannot have more than one spouse. That's one of the distinguishing characteristics that make same-sex unions DIFFERENT from other types of friendships and THE SAME AS opposite-sex marriage.

    Also, thank you for acknowledging that "we are not interested what you do in your privacy; nor do we share what we do in ours; and since it is a private matter, it cannot possibly be an essential criterion for marriage or friendship." I agree totally - what you do in your bedroom cannot possible be an essential criterion for marriage. Perhaps you and Chairm should have a discussion on this topic, as he professes otherwise.

  24. Posted February 14, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Chairm writes:

    "Please specify that part of your description that distinguishes the type of relationship you have in mind from all other types of relationships."

    The type of relationship I have in mind has all of the characteristics I've already relayed.

    The "other types of relationships", as you call them, would be those that do not have all of those characteristics.

    Thank you for your opinion that "no one-sexed scenario can become a comprehensive type of relationship."

    com·pre·hen·sive
    /ˌkämpriˈhensiv/
    Adjective
    1. Complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something: "a comprehensive list of sources".
    2. Of large content or scope; wide-ranging.

    A same-sex relationship can include all or nearly all aspects of something. It can be large of content or scope. It can be wide-ranging. It is comprehensive when it is inclusive of everything we have.

  25. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Okay, so now you mean there are no essentials for the type of relationship you have in mind.

    Thanks for the confirmation that the SSM idea lacks a core and is merely a specious substitution for marriage.

  26. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Search said, erroneously, that SSM "is comprehensive when it is inclusive of everything we have."

    Well, on that score, we have sexual embodiment. The lack of bodily union means that no one-sex-short scenario can for a comprehensive type of relationship.

    Bodily union is significant precisely because it is a gift of self -- the whole self -- and not merely metaphorically.

    You are trying so hard to make one aspect of the truth come into conflict with other aspects of the truth. But the truth is consistent, Search, and does not contradict itself.

    SSM is an idea that has generated so much rhetoric and argumentation in its favor that is obviously contradictory and self-refuting. Your is no less so.

  27. Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    re: comment 26.

    No, sir. You repeatedly ignore the essentials listed, like some kind of see-no-evil monkey.

    You seem to have some "other type of relationship" in mind, but you constantly fail to articulate what that might be. Like some kind of speak-no-evil monkey. Tell us, finally, what is this mysterious "other type of relationship" that satisfies what I've relayed as the essentials of marriage, but which you feel is not marriage.

    Re comment 27.

    If you are so naive that you thing same-sex couples are incapable of bodily union, let me fill you in. Comprehensive bodily union is not limited to the interaction of the male reproductive organ with the female reproductive organ. Bodies unite in more than one way, and for more than one biological purpose than reproduction. It follows, then, that same-sex couples share a similar potential as their opposite-sex counterparts to fulfill a biological function through bodily union. ( Many opposite-sex couples enjoy the bonus of being able to choose whether or not that expression will remain open to the possibility of reproduction ).

    The only organic function that same-sex couples cannot fulfill on their own, through bodily union, is reproduction. The same is true of plenty of opposite-sex couples that society happily recognizes as married. Rejecting same-sex couples on basis, therefore, is absurd.

  28. Posted February 14, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    As paranoia starts, SearchCz starts to dish out the ad hominem references. Typical behavior:

    a) "You ... constantly fail to articulate what that might be. Like some kind of speak-no-evil monkey."

    b) "what is this mysterious. . ."

    c) "like some kind of see-no-evil monkey."

    Let me fill you in on some types of limited comprehensive "bodily unions":

    a) Intravenous (IV) HIV
    b) Castigation by sodomizing
    c) drinking of another's teardrops.
    d) smelling bad breath
    e) kidnapping
    f) incarceration

    So, how is "bodily union" relevant to define an association, in a way Congress has recognized? Notice that any kind of bodily union is not a requirement for civil marriage. Even husband and wife are not REQUIRED to perform bodily union. But, if they engender a child fortunate enough to become a US citizen, the government pounds on them irrespective of the type of bodily union they perform in their privacy, because the birth of a child (and the protection of the child's rights) is no private matter.

    But i'll await now Chairm's conceptual and targeted response to your definition of 'comprehensive', in which you assume the human being is genderless, as a matter of choice. Thanks.

  29. Posted February 16, 2013 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    SearchCz: I didn't misquote you. You need glasses. So, . . . that's the problem. It's in your comment, in black & white.

  30. Chairm
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    Search, pick an essential from your list for illustrative purposes. Explain how it is a necessary component of the type of relationship you have in mind that is one-sexed.

  31. Chairm
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    Search,

    You said: "The only organic function that same-sex couples cannot fulfill on their own, through bodily union, is reproduction. The same is true of plenty of opposite-sex couples that society happily recognizes as married."

    You have made many errors in your comments but this particular quote helps to illustrate your confusions.

    You asserted that there is a type of bodily union that is one-sexed; you asserted that within such a type of bodily union there is organic function and biological purpose.

    Please state the organic function and the biological purpose of the one-sexed type of relationship you have in mind. I'd rather not try to read your mind.

    I have not referred to "comprehensive bodily union."

    You did, not I.

    Perhaps you read someone else who used that phrase, mistakenly, and thus misrepresented the argument.

    Bodily union is two-sexed, not sex-neutral nor one-sexed. It is manifest in coital relations. Not all two-sexed sexual relationships are bodily union. And not all bodily union is situated within the comprehensive type of relationship. However, to be comprehensive the type of relationship needs to entail bodily union for we are sexually embodied beings.

    The marital act, coital relations, entails the whole man and the whole woman, not merely their body parts. This is bodily union for it is procreative in kind. There is no other candidate for bodily union among human beings.

    But to be comprehensive the relationship must not merely by a bodily union. That alone does not suffice because we are also volitional, emotional, and reasoned beings. A type of relationship can no more be comprehensive without volition, for example, than it can be without bodily union.

    Okay, so you confused terms but you clearly understand marriage to be a type of relationship. We are not discussing this or that particular marriage. As a type of relationship, you clearly understand, this is sexual.

    I mean, you do not expect society to investigate each and every marriage to ensure with 100% certainty that this or that husband and wife have engaged in coital relations. Yet the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, and the marital presumption of paternity is two-sexed, not one-sexed. So marriage law does entail a sexual basis that is orientated to procreation.

    You would rather compare the marital type of relationship with the type of one-sexed sexual relationship that you have in mind.

    You asserted that same-sex sexual behavior has organic function and biological purpose. Perhaps you will clarify your intended meaning.

    Meanwhile, you clearly acknowledged that no one-sexed scenario can be procreative in outcome (without importing what is extrinsic to it). As such, of course, the entire range of one-sexed scenarios is not procreative in outcome, much less procreative in kind.

    That does not change by adding sexual behavior; it does not change by adding more persons of the same sex; it does not change by adding same-sex sexual attraction; likewise, no change by adding gay identity. This is made clear if you consider the lone individual and then bring in another person of the same sex and then a parade of persons of the same sex. The lack of the other sex precludes the procreative outcome.

    Indeed, it precludes bodily union. Very often bodily union may procreative in outcome but it is always procreative in kind. Consider two persons -- one male and the other female -- well, without bodily union the scenario is not procreative in kind. It may be a meritorious type of relationship -- such as the prototypical sibling friendship -- but it cannot be comprehensive unless it entails bodily union. The sibling type of relationship is nonsexual; if a particular instance becomes sexualized, society unhappily recognizes it as sexually incestuous. The sibling friendship is a different type of relationship from the marital friendship.

    You chose to consider the discussion at the level of granularity whereby the same-sex category is compared with the opposite-sex category. Already you concede a huge difference: the same-sex category is always not procreative in outcome -- and is not procreative in kind -- regardless of how many participants, regardless of sexual behaviors, and regardless of gay identity. So all of those things do not distinguish the type of relationship you have in mind from the rest of the non-comprehensive types of relationships possible for humankind.

    Then you switched level of granularity and zoomed in on the particular instances of marriage in which there is no procreative outcome. You would expect the line to be drawn more tightly within the two-sexed category -- of course society draws the line at siblings, for example. However, you'd go further and consider why a line is not more tightly drawn against man-woman bodily unions that are not procreative in outcome.

    It is an odd consideration but you appear to be in earnest so let's proceed.

    First: fertility is an ability; infertility is a disability of reproductive powers. The lack of the other sex precludes both the ability and the disability; fertility and infertility are two-sexed not one-sexed. The lack of the other sex is intrinsic to the type of relationship you have in mind. Adding the number two -- "the same-sex couple" -- does not change the intrinsic ability into something that is variable.

    Sure, human fertility is variable and can be disabled through various things. So when you consider drawing the line more tightly you are really considering a difference in degree rather than in kind. But when you demand to treat the one-sexed category the same as the particular marriages that are not procreative in outcome, well, you consider a difference in kind rather than degree.

    Anyway, we are discussing, as per your own comments, a type of relationship that is comprehensive. As such it entails bodily union -- manifested in coital relations between husband and wife. This is bodily union because it is procreative in kind.

    That is so even for reproductively healthy married couples who experience infertility. Consider again the variability of fertility. The healthy couple's coital relations will be infertile for most of the days of every month of their childbearing years. Indeed, infertile during pregnancy. Yet you could not claim that their coital relations is procreative in kind only when procreative in outcome, surely.

    Okay, so switch to the subset of the one-sexed category that you would favor via your gay emphasis. At that level of granularity what are you asking society to happily consider if not the sexualized type of one-sexed relationship? You do not mean the prototypical platonic friendship.

    No, the pro-SSM complaint is that the marriage law discriminates between sexualized relationships. That is the meaning of the charge of unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is the meaning you infuse with your use of the phrase "same-sex couple" for you surely talked of supposed bodily union that would be one-sexed.

    As already pointed out, adding same-sex sexual behavior does not change the fact that the entire range of one-sexed scenarios is not procreative in outcome nor procreative in kind. Adding another individual to the lone individual of the same sex does not justify your focus on the "coupled" subset of the gay subset in this regard. Might as well as a third individual or more individuals.

    So it is a mistake to claim, as you did, that "the same is true of plenty of opposite-sex couples that society happily recognizes as married".

    So why the limit to twosomes in regard to bodily union?

    See the sex difference: the nature of human procreation is two-sexed and the marital relationship, being comprehensive and so necessarily entailing bodily union, is orientated to procreation and the family. It is therefore procreative in kind even if coital relations is not guaranteed to be procreative in outcome always.

    For a 100% guarantee, consider the constancy presented by the lack of the other sex: it is always not procreative in kind. Indeed, given your gay emphasis, the type of sexual behavior you have in mind is oriented to same-sex sexual attraction rather than procreation and family.

    The marital relationship does have an orientation but it is not defined by sexual attraction. It is based on bodily union itself.

    I do recognize that you would rather redefine bodily union just as you'd redefine marriage. It is comparable to your setting up dominoes of your own making. But focus instead on the core meaning of marriage.

    Okay, maybe that is asking too much of you. Howzabout stating the organic function of same-sex sexual behavior; howzabout stating the biological purpose of same-sex sexual behavior.

  32. Chairm
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Typo correction for the paragraph beginning with: "First: Fertility is an ability ..."

    [The lack of the other sex precludes fertility and it precludes infertility because its nonfertility is intrinsic. It is an inability that inheres to the lack of the other sex.]

    Here is the typo correction:

    "Adding the number two -- «the same-sex couple» -- does not change the instrinsic inability into something variable."

    This clearly points at a distinctive difference in kind rather than in degree, between the one-sexed category and the two-sexed category. Note this difference is based on the defining characteristic of so-called SSM, namely its lack of the other sex.