John Podhoretz announces that he no longer opposes gay marriage:
As it happens, like our president, I was for a long time an opponent of gay marriage. I am not any longer—indeed, I am relieved that on Tuesday night citizens of four states chose freely to allow gay marriage within their borders rather than having such a thing imposed through judicial fiat. However, I am deeply respectful of those traditionalists who stand in opposition to it for profound reasons of conscience and faith and do not deserve to have the word “bigot” hurled unjustly at them.
I’m grateful for Podhoretz’s deep respect; would that more shared it. What he misses, though, is that opposition to gay marriage has never been about what he calls “profound reasons of conscience and faith.” It is, instead, about defending the common good, as Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George explain in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Marriage law shapes behavior by promoting a vision of what marriage is and requires. Redefinition will deepen the social distortion of marriage—and consequent harms—begun by policies such as “no-fault” divorce. As marital norms make less sense, adherence to them erodes.
Conservative scaremongering? No. Same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, like other candid revisionists, says that redefinition “almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage,” and she welcomes that result.
Yet weakening marital norms will hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest. Rewriting the parenting ideal will also undermine in our mores and practice the special value of biological mothers and fathers. By marking support for the conjugal view as bigotry, it will curb freedoms of religion and conscience. Redefinition will do all this in the name of a basic error about what marriage is.
I see no dishonor in being an opponent of a misguided proposal like gay marriage, but if Podhoretz is no longer willing to to identify as such I hope he will also refuse to be called a supporter. Not all things inevitable are desirable, nor desirable inevitable. That gay marriage seems likelier than ever does not make arguments in its favor any more persuasive. In a healthy and just society, social institutions discipline our desires rather than being remade by them. We should hope and work for a society of that kind.
November 21st, 2012 | 10:49 am
It sounds to me like John Podhoretz has simply learned to make a better value judgment.
Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like Mr. Podhoretz, like increasing numbers of American voters, are starting to accept that.
The notion that encouraging monogamy and commitment amongst Gay couples is somehow going to DISCOURAGE monogamy and commitment amongst Straight couples simply makes no sense whatsoever.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:03 am
What if it’s “refusal to allow anyone else to actualize any other view” that’s considered bigotry, though?
November 21st, 2012 | 11:05 am
As a gay conservative (or at least fiscal conservative), I will be forever grateful to Mr. Podhoretz for standing up for my family and I. As we all know, marriage is a commitment. It is a promise of fidelity, trust, partnership and love; all family values that need to be encourage within society – gay and straight.
It is an institution that I will be glad to be apart of someday – an institution that will benefit my husband, my children and bring tears of happiness to the eyes of my parents, siblings and grandparents.
Thank you, Mr. Podhoretz.
I just hope that I will be able to say the same to you Mr. Schmitz. :/
November 21st, 2012 | 11:13 am
I used to oppose marriage equality as a young evangelical, but education, exposure to the larger world and growing respect for my same-sex oriented family members and friends, has transformed me into a strong supporter of marriage equality. Thankfully, my Lutheran Church in North Carolina has recently begun to bless same-sex marriages/unions, which places me into a congregation that is consistent with my beliefs. It is interesting that even amongst my young evangelical peers, there is growing vocal support for civil and even religious same-sex marriages. Evolution can be difficult, but in this case, it is going in the right direction.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:18 am
And the falling away continues as we are “slouching towards Gomorrah”
November 21st, 2012 | 11:22 am
I’m grateful for Podhoretz’s deep respect; would that more shared it.
If proponents of same-sex marriage owe opponents of same-sex marriage deep respect, don’t opponents of same-sex marriage owe proponents of same-sex marriage deep respect as well?
November 21st, 2012 | 11:34 am
It appears that marriage is redefined at least in a growing manner, and it is only the ‘traditionalists’ who see it as an transcendent institution we had formally been blessed enoough to recognize for what it is. Now it will be different. I am most interested at this point to know how our intellectual elite will redefine incest. It is bound to be the next ‘tradition’ that will need to be remade so as to be inclusive of all loving couples who wish to be married. Philosophers of the Enllightenment would be shocked and amazed at how far we have come once we deny the obvious.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:59 am
1. People as people deserve respect; views on issues may or may not deserve respect, depending on the view in question.
2. Why people choose to marry is not the main issue; the main issue is, why should the state recognize a union as marriage? What is the state interest? The state has an interest in the conjugal view of marriage because the state has an interest in encouraging people who engage in procreative kinds of acts to do so in a stable, exclusive relationship, one that can legally relate any children who are begotten to their parents and parents to children. Even when procreation isn’t possible or desired by a couple engaged in conjugal acts, the state still has an interest in recognizing their union as marriage in order to encourage other couples who do intend children and who engage in conjugal acts to do so in a marital relationship. Thus, the state has an interest in recognizing as marriage the relationship of couples who engage in conjugal acts even when they don’t intend to have children or cannot. The state has no interest in encouraging same-sex relationships and just because people in those relationships desire social recognition for them is no reason the state should recognize them.
November 21st, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Conservative scaremongering? No. Same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, like other candid revisionists, says that redefinition “almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage,” and she welcomes that result.
I’ll ask again, will anti-SSM advocates be willing to put down something real in this debate? Can they tell us exactly how SSM will weaken heterosexual marriages and provide us with actual objective predictions that we can test?
In other words, I’d like anti-SSM to tell us what a state will look like say, five or ten years after legalizing SSM. If their predictions fail to pan out will they then agree to say they were mistaken in their argument and move on?
It seems to me the whole ‘weaken the institution’ argument is otherwise just a bunch of weasel words. Tell me how marriage is stronger in Texas which does not have SSM than in Mass. which has had it nearly a decade now? Do you have something real and objective you care to point too or does ‘weaken’ or ‘stregthen’ simply mean you take a deep breath and declare that you think marriage is stronger in Texas rather than Mass?
November 21st, 2012 | 12:43 pm
Hater. Bigot. Intolerant. These are the epithets hurled at those not wishing to redefine marriage for a small segment that only a tiny subsegment of that segment opt for.
But once the redefinition occurs, the results are well known: marginalization of the majority and rapidly decreasing marriage rate and forced “acceptance” of homosexuality and indoctrination of the kids in public schools (Gay appreciation day, The two princes,…).
The same sex marriage proponents are the opposite of live and let live libertarians. It’s all We won, now we will ram down your throats, get you fired from your workplace for being intolerant, etc.
November 21st, 2012 | 12:44 pm
Thank you, Matthew, for a well-written article. I agree that no-fault divorce (as with laws that allow abortion-on-demand) has had a deteriorating effect on society, and that legalizing same-sex marriages will ultimately do the same.
We cannot legislate morality, but what we normalize in law has a normalizing effect in society. I am not optimistic about the direction of our nation’s courts, particularly as Supreme Court vacancies are (likely) filled over the next four years.
November 21st, 2012 | 1:01 pm
From Mark Keffer and Tradtionalist we have a prediction of a ‘rapidly decreasing marriage rate’.
OK Texas has never had gay marriage and is on record as being very against it.
Mass has had it for almost a decade.
Who wants to present evidence that Mass.’s marriage rate has not only been declining over the last ten years but has ‘rapidly’ declined? Any evidence that Texas’s affirmation of being anti-SSM has altered its marriage or divorce rate in any positive way?
Traditionalist makes a second prediction that SSM will produce ‘forced acceptance of homosexuality’. Interestingly we can compare California and New York which came late to SSM to Mass. I suspect you won’t find any real differences between how accepting all three states are of homosexuality….but I’ll grant that it’s pretty hard to objectively measure such things.
November 21st, 2012 | 1:28 pm
Same sex marriage is not illegal anywhere. You may make a lifelong commitment to your partner. You may have a ceremony. You may call that union a marriage. Who’s stopping you?
November 21st, 2012 | 2:10 pm
BOONTON says Traditionalist makes a second prediction that SSM will produce ‘forced acceptance of homosexuality’ Read here for some info on that
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
November 21st, 2012 | 2:10 pm
We always hear stories about how “meeting so many nice gay people” or something along those lines led someone to support simulated, state-created bureaucratic “marriage” for homosexuals. As with so much in progressive opinion, this is simply an appeal to emotion. “Don’t you feel bad about not giving people what they want?” is the idea. Don’t you want that warm, fuzzy feeling?
Then there is the condescension. “Education” and “exposure to the wider world” led Javier above to convince himself that the state can change the nature of the ancient tradition of marriage. Again, this isn’t really an argument, it’s just being snotty.
Finally we hear about “moving into the 21st c.” and references to traditional, natural marriage as “outdated,” etc. This, too, is not really an argument for upending tradition and nature. It turns a serious debate into a popularity contest. By this logic, Lady Gaga is a better musician than Bach was, because she is more popular at the moment.
The only real argument that makes sense for SSM is that gays have a “right” to marry each other. (One may note pedantically that gays can marry now, they just can’t marry each other.) But this right has never really existed until now, or at least has been balanced with other concerns. For example, one cannot marry immediate family members, multiple people, inanimate objects, etc. All rights are always balanced with others in the context of society.
Historically and biologically, marriage is a social institution designed to support families and provide for the well-being of children. It may, in the past 30 years or so, have come to also be understood as a kind of friendship, but this was generally not its meaning throughout most of history, and today outside of the West. Friendship does not require the recognition of the state in the same way that an arrangement involving children does.
And so I think it is the rights of children that ultimately tip the scales against the novel legal construct we call “same-sex marriage.” Children have the right, or should, to be raised by their biological mother and father. It is cruel to deny them this link to their ancestral heritage.
November 21st, 2012 | 2:16 pm
It’s about the children. Children do better in stable heterosexual marriages. Something the state should promote, the rest not so much.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6784/
November 21st, 2012 | 2:26 pm
But once the redefinition occurs, the results are well known: marginalization of the majority and rapidly decreasing marriage rate . . .
Traditionalist,
Where is the data to support this? There are now 11 countries with legal same-sex marriage. Can you cite figures of a rapidly decreasing marriage rate in them that can be attributed to same-sex marriage? The marriage rate is declining in the United States and Western countries in general. What is the explanation for this? Same-sex marriage? Please provide something to back up your assertion.
November 21st, 2012 | 2:27 pm
@ Mark Brumley,
RE: “state support for procreative acts”
Procreatino is not a requirement of marriage – for ANYONE. And, many heterosexuals make “procreative acts” outside of marriage.
The State’s interest is in stable families period. Children are not a requirement.
P.S. And what about those gay folk who DO have children? Why shouldn’t they garner the “State’s interest” and benefit from the 1,176 Federal “effects that flow from marriage”?
November 21st, 2012 | 2:28 pm
@ Mark Brumley,
Re: “the state has an interest in recognizing as marriage the relationship of couples who engage in conjugal acts even when they don’t intend to have children or cannot.”
This alone negates your very argument about the “State’s interest”.
November 21st, 2012 | 2:46 pm
Schmitz writes, “opposition to gay marriage … is, instead, about defending the common good.”
I am one man who has been married to one woman, my first and only wife, for 29 years now. I love my wife and we are faithful to each other. We’ve raised our family. We shared joys and comforted each other through sorrows.
My life is THE VERY DEFINITION of the quintessential “traditional” marriage that Schmitz claims to stand up for.
Dear Mr. Schmitz: Please stop using my marriage as an excuse to deny a fundamental civil right to our LGBT fellow American citizens.
I support equal civil rights for all and that includes marriage equality for LGBT Americans. I defend civil rights for all because in America, THAT is the definition of standing up to defend the common good.
November 21st, 2012 | 3:13 pm
Boonton has it exactly right! George, et al are making predictions that can be empirically tested, yet they fail to note any evidence that supports their claim. He also fails to take into account any of the clear positive effects of marriage equality for couples and society.
November 21st, 2012 | 4:15 pm
The most interesting part of the article, I found, was the quote of same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, who, like other candid revisionists, says that the redefinition of natural marriage “almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage.” There are many other great reasons to defend marriage, which I share here: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
November 21st, 2012 | 4:17 pm
Personally I think civil marriage already lacks many of the features traditionalists are placing on marriage so I don’t think harming marriage should precisely be the issue. Also straight cohabitation and divorce are far more of a cause for marital decline.
However the affects on gender, child-raising, and opposition strike me as a more plausible concern. When you allow SSM you essentially make marriage gender-neutral. There’s no way to limit it to gay people I can see. So the notion of heterosexuality or gender as distinct possibly erodes. Two fathers, two mothers, a mother and father are deemed “just as good.” Science says so. Possibly the idea of “father” and “mother” itself erodes in favor of “co-parenting” terms. This could be a profound change with negative consequences. And by the state supporting it the state could be opposing alternative visions as bigotry.
However I don’t have information to know if this has affected rates of fatherlessness or gender. But that would be what to look at IMO.
November 21st, 2012 | 4:27 pm
Legal marriage and religious marriage are different things. The gay community is many different things altogether. To say that there is a gay community, let alone lump lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered in there as a “community” is a great disservice to all of those very individual partitioned components. Like every dark skinned Spanish speaker is magically “Hispanic” and share the same views across the differentiating elements. Nope, sorry, but many gays have been hijacked into this “damn the torpedoes” mentality by what I’ll call the gay/lesbian mafia.
So within this nebulous supposedly one-minded LGBT community, the gay/lesbian marriage mafia has taken up the torch and become the face of the gay marriage movement. Many straight people would sign on if the mafia would let it stop at legal marriage. That is a realistic hurdle. But that is not what is being demanded, and dare I say demanded is a light word, perhaps extorted is more appropriate. The gay/lesbian mafia has no end in sight and won’t be happy until they obliterate religious freedom into a twisted acquiescence. Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, etc., are the target. Religious freedom be damned. Marriage in the church of their choice and the more mockery of religious institutions they tear down along the way, the better. Hey, that’s their view, not mine.
So the discussion requires semantic nuances to correctly identify exactly what is being sought. The extremes on both sides won’t give, so where does that leave the pro-civil union/pro religious freedom crowd? Right now, the gay/lesbian mafia calls them bigots. And until that changes, status quo for the friends of Dorothy…
November 21st, 2012 | 5:39 pm
Inis Magrath: “I support equal civil rights for all and that includes marriage equality for LGBT Americans.”
This is begging the question. Yes, of course we all agree that IF homosexuals have the right to marry each other THEN that right should be encoded into law? But do they in fact have this right? If so, why have nearly all cultures in all times and places not recognized it at all? Why does the Bible call homosexuality shameful? And why, if gays can marry, do we prevent immediate family members from marrying, or polygamy, or marrying inanimate objects, etc?
There is a logical reason for restricting marriage to one man and one woman based on the biology of human reproduction. There does not appear to be any such logic underlying same-sex marriage. If marriage had never been established, it is unlikely that gays would be calling for its establishment now, isn’t it?
November 21st, 2012 | 6:20 pm
Children have the right, or should, to be raised by their biological mother and father. It is cruel to deny them this link to their ancestral heritage.
Patrick,
What are you doing to oppose sperm donation, egg donation, and embryo donation? There was a fascinating article in the New York Times a while ago about a sperm donor who has 150 offspring (none of whom he is raising, of course).
Why is a child adopted by a same-sex couple any more deprived of his or her biological parents than a child adopted by opposite-sex parents?
Presumably you are aware that 41% of children in the United States are born out of wedlock. Also, of women who have 2 or more children, 28% have conceived them with two or more fathers.
While googling, I came across this interesting headline for a story about Tennessee: “The three men who have fathered 78 children with 46 different women… and they’re not paying child support to any of them.”
Virtually all the 1.3 million babies aborted per year (over 50 million since 1973) were the product of heterosexual, not homosexual, acts.
And, seriously, you are opposing same-sex marriage because children have a right to be raised by their biological parents?
November 21st, 2012 | 7:51 pm
Conned once more by a Neocon.
November 21st, 2012 | 8:14 pm
And, seriously, you are opposing same-sex marriage because children have a right to be raised by their biological parents?
To comment on my own comment . . .
Rob Vischer of Mirror of Justice said something incredibly succinct on this topic some months ago.
It is, of course, over-inclusive because probably the vast majority of same-sex couples (especially male couples) will not have children by ART. And it is under-inclusive because by far the majority of people who have children by ART are heterosexual married couples.
If people are truly committed to maximizing the number of children raised by both their biological mother and biological father, there is so much that could be done aside from opposing same-sex marriage that those who claim to oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it will increase the number of children not raised by their biological mother and father are difficult to take seriously on this point.
November 21st, 2012 | 8:16 pm
“Here is a fact that all must face: Homosexuality as a personal or social identity is thoroughly a political construction, no more than 60 or 70 years old by the most liberal measure…Sure, same-sex sex has existed since the most ancient of times. But it was simply understood as an act — something someone did to another person. And in nearly all cultures throughout time, it was taboo to varying degrees. It was there in ancient Greek culture, but this was only between a man and boys or slaves,…Such acts between men of the same status in society were viewed as shameful. Romantic, emotionally-based same-sex relationships were unheard of. Then at the turn of the last century, same-sex sex became a condition among some Western cultures. One of the first sexologists (and a very liberal one) — Havelock Ellis — referred to it as “sexual inversion” and later homosexuality. The term “homosexuality” arose around the 1880s and 1890s to describe what was predominantly understood as sexual psycho-pathology — a condition one suffered from or had.
And only a few decades ago in certain developed Western nations did it become an identity — something someone was.
And this was only after the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying same-sex attraction as a mental disorder in 1973. Don’t think for a moment that this was done as a result of the careful scientific deliberation of the association. It is commonly known they acquiesced to the rambunctious and constant protest of gay activists.
And this brings us to where we are today with the issue: People are just born that way, so accept it. Mark Steyn explains the implications of this social evolution:
“One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it’s a fully fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.”
November 21st, 2012 | 8:41 pm
David, well, probably not all that I should. All of the things you mention are pernicious. You raise some valid points, but none of them really support SSM, do they? In effect, you seem to be saying, “We’ve already sunk this far, so what difference will SSM make?”
It is always a tragedy when a child doesn’t know his or her biological parents, grandparents, cousins, the “old country,” etc. I’m not saying that SSM is the only problem in the world. But it does deepen the problems of a society increasingly atomized and alienated from its historical roots.
It is likely that SSM will further normalize the industrialization of procreation. It is one more effort — not the only one, surely — to chip away at a humane life in harmony with nature and tradition, and with humankind’s innate biology.
I believe the fight against SSM will probably be lost. We have become increasingly absorbed in abstraction, illusion, and mediation. The prophecy of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is becoming more and more fulfilled. We increasingly believe in the image we see of ourselves on the computer screen: timeless, and eternally malleable.
Eventually the stock market and the internet will pass away, yet children will still be born in the same way. Thus, we can choose to live in the world of Western late modernity, or in the natural world of God’s creation…, “In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
November 22nd, 2012 | 12:09 am
I know it’s hard for conservatives to accept a changing world but this change is for the better. Gay couples are raising a lot of children and those children would be much better off if their parents were married. Marriage stabilizes an adult relationship and therefore stabilizes a family, including the kids. That reason alone is reason enough to make same-sex marriage legal!
November 22nd, 2012 | 12:27 am
“(One may note pedantically that gays can marry now, they just can’t marry each other.) ”
Wrote Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
November 22nd, 2012 | 2:42 am
Conneley:
Nuance? We don’t need no steenking nuance!
November 22nd, 2012 | 9:40 am
The law imposes an obligation of fidelity on spouses. This duty is the foundation of the presumption of paternity, which applies only in marriage. There is no such obligation in the case of a civil union (PACS) for there is no such presumption, even in the case of an opposite-sex couple and so no risk of the imposition of a spurious issue.
Now, jurisprudence has added an obligation of loyalty, derived from the common law of contract. This is different from the fidelity demanded in marriage, but a bailiff may be designated to verify a failure to meet this obligation and such a failure may justify cancellation of a PACS, with the
delinquent partner being found at fault.
As the French Senate put it in 2005, “The presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple’s children. The report presenting the order to the President of the Republic rightly points out that ” it is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value.”
By the same token, what public purpose would the obligation of fidelity (as opposed to “loyalty”) serve, in the case of a same-sex marriage?
November 22nd, 2012 | 9:40 am
Thank you Patrick for being a voice of reason.
November 22nd, 2012 | 11:49 am
So let’s keep this in mind, since we have jurisdictions that had SSM for years now those taking the anti-SSM are on notice that we are going to be able to ‘keep score’ in this game. Practice is over, kickoff has happened, now its for real.
This post began with several claims cited in the WSJ piece by Girgis, Anderson and George. Namely:
1. SSM will ‘weaken the institution of marriage’ per Victoria Brownsworth.
2. Children will be hurt.
3. Spouses will be hurt.
4. We will have less ‘special value’ places on biological mothers and fathers.
5. Religious freedom will be curbed because the ‘conjugal view’ will be seen as bigotry.
I have asked exactly what #1 means and how can we observe whether marriage is strong or weak in a particular community. Tell us exactly how we know marriage is weaker in MA today than it was ten years ago and stronger in TX than it was ten years ago. Even better, let us provide stats about a particular state or country and you tell us whether or not it instituted SSM and when! Does any anti-SSM advocate think they can meet this challenge?
We can ask the same for all the others but let me just quickly take them in reverse order:
#5 is not about religious freedom. If a particular religious view is unpopular, that is not an infringement on freedom. The Catholic Church cannot claim it is being persecuted because divorce is legal in all 50 states and even many Catholics support it. The state has no obligation to ensure a religion’s views are popular or not. It’s also not clear that simply being legal makes something popular or unpopular. Smoking was once very popular, now its very unpopular yet it was never illegal. Having a kid out of wedlock was once very unpopular, now its very popular, yet it was also never illegal. There’s no clear line between simply relaxing a prohibition and making it more or less popular.
#4 let’s again have evidence. Does Mass have less respect for biological mothers and fathers than it did ten years ago?
#2 and #3 – While it won’t eliminate the issue, I think one major plus of SSM is that it will lessen the extent of gay people marrying straight people in a misguided attempt to ‘be normal’. That I think is clearly very painful for spouses and children born into a marriage that has a very high probability of failure. Other than that positive, anti-SSM advocates have consistently failed to articulate a ‘transmission mechanism’ from gays (which are a very small portion of the population) and straights (who are a supermajority). Exactly how does the fact that ‘Uncle Joe’ is legally married to his partner make it more likely for you to cheat on your wife? Leave her for a younger woman? Neglect or abuse your marriage or kids? Since we are now ‘keeping score’, please produce for us hard evidence that it is worse to be a spouse or child in Mass today than it was ten years ago and that it has gotten better to be one in Texas.
Most of the talk about children here, though, seems to revolve around the children that a SSM couple might have. But a few really burning points that always seem to be missed are:
A. There’s nothing stopping a same sex couple from having a kid. In that case wouldn’t it be better if the couple are legally married which ensures some measure of legal obligation on the spouses rather than not?
B. Where are these kids coming from? If they are adopted then you’re making an apples to oranges comparison. You’re comparing the best heterosexual couples with children to same sex couples. But the best heterosexual couples do not typically give their biological children to the adoption system. If a kid is in the adoption system, then by definition something has gone wrong with the biological parents.
C. Marriage is not a license to have kids. If you can prove a same sex couple is unfit, then you can prevent them from adopting kids or even take away any biological kids they might produce.
So a lot to chew on, have a Happy Thanksgiving all!
November 22nd, 2012 | 2:20 pm
Thanks Boonton for the thoughtful rundown. For those who paid attention to the Proposition 8 trial in California and its written judgment, and as your comments show: while the anti-gay folks have strong feelings and opinions, they completely lack any factual evidence to justify denying equal rights. Yes, indeed, we want to redefine marriage: to eliminate the imbedded bigotry in the current definition. We wish to be full members of society, not second-class citizens, and yes, we want all kids to know it’s OK to be gay. They don’t have to commit suicide.
November 22nd, 2012 | 6:23 pm
Robert -November 22nd, 2012 | 12:09 am
I know it’s hard for conservatives to accept a changing world but this change is for the better. Gay couples are raising a lot of children and those children would be much better off if their parents were married.
=============
Indeed it would be much better if they resolved their homosexual problems and married as heterosexuals.
In European countries where homosexual marriage was legalized, alas, the enormous majority of homosexuals continues to reject marriage.
============
David wrote:
“The marriage rate is declining in the United States and Western countries in general. What is the explanation for this? Same-sex marriage? Please provide something to back up your assertion.”
A society which encourages and to a certain extent exerts pressure on adults to form wholesome, committed personal relationships will produce a high rate of marriages. A society that normalizes promiscuity, cohabitation, homosexuality, porn, prostitution, etc. will produce a much lesser number of wholesome marriages.
All societies that have legalized and normalized homosexuality have done so as a part of larger, very destructive trends.
The number of people who believe homosexuality is normal and simultaneously endorse a variety of destructive attitudes and behaviors related to sexuality and relationships is massive.
November 23rd, 2012 | 1:02 pm
Indeed it would be much better if they resolved their homosexual problems and married as heterosexuals.
This is where ‘keeping score’ helps a lot. We have zero evidence that exclusively homosexual persons (as opposed to bisexual) have ever ‘resolved their homosexual problems’ and successfully married as heterosexuals. But all of us know of examples of innocent spouses, children and others harmed by attempts of gay people to ‘act normal’ and enter heterosexual marriages that were simply not natural for them.
November 24th, 2012 | 12:39 am
Remember the story of some hick legislature that supposedly wanted to legislate that pi=3 ? Now we have lawmakers eager to legislate that same-sex sham marriages are equal to the real thing.
They’re all laughingstocks.
November 24th, 2012 | 6:51 pm
Boonton
November 23rd, 2012 | 1:02 pm
Indeed it would be much better if they resolved their homosexual problems and married as heterosexuals.
This is where ‘keeping score’ helps a lot. We have zero evidence that exclusively homosexual persons (as opposed to bisexual) have ever ‘resolved their homosexual problems’ and successfully married as heterosexuals. But all of us know of examples of innocent spouses, children and others harmed by attempts of gay people to ‘act normal’ and enter heterosexual marriages that were simply not natural for them.
==========
On the contrary, there are a number of people who affirm they have resolved their homosexual problems. They seem to be quite vilified by people who are adamant about normalizing homosexuality, which obviously entails being in denial about all the social and psychological problems that produce homosexual dynamics in a person’s mind.
Is being an adulterer what is natural for an adulterer? Is sexually abusing children what is natural for a sexual abuser? Is having homosexual relationships what is natural for a homosexual? “Natural” in this context simply means to act out all sorts of psychological and ethical problems, and never investigating where they come from, nor how they can be solved.
November 25th, 2012 | 6:48 am
On the contrary, there are a number of people who affirm they have resolved their homosexual problems.
Don’t change the goal posts. YOu asserted it would be better if they ‘resolved their homosexual problems’ and became married heterosexuals. To ‘keep score’ here you have to demonstrate that heterosexual marriages that consist of partners with a previous history of *only* homosexual behavior have, on average, no greater portion of failure or serious problems than marriages without such partners.
A man who simply says he is happy no longer having homosexual sex, for example, is not sufficient. Nor would be a case of a man (or woman) with a history of sex with both genders who settles down to a marriage with someone of the opposite gender.
We all know many examples of marriages ruined by gays who attempted to marry those of the opposite sex in order to try to ‘be normal’. So you’re mounting an argument from a hole already. Even if you do have some cases where a gay person went onto an otherwise successful and happy straight marriage, you need that to happen enough to offset the many times the opposite happens.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact