Mounting Doubts About Same-Sex “Marriage”
October 20, 2011
Brian Raum
In the wake of the New York Legislature’s decision to pass the so-called “Marriage Equality Act,” there has been a renewed discussion among homosexual activists over whether they really ought to be pursuing an institution historically rife with “heterosexual” values such as exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy.
“I felt pretty ambivalent, I have to say,” said one celebrant, who a CNN reporter described as a “cross-dresser,” about the New York vote:
“It’s definitely not something I’m unhappy about.” But he wondered about the appropriateness of only extending new rights to gay people who embraced the specific model of heterosexual marriage. “Of course there are many other kinds of relationships, especially within queer culture, whether it’s open relationships or nonsexual companionship or polyamorous relationships. These nontraditional relationships have been championed in the gay community in the past, and I do think all types of relationships should be honored, and not just the people who fit this model.”
His partner agreed, adding, “I think it’s a little sad that what we’ve devoted ourselves to here is, at its core, about transfers of wealth and property.” The writer of the CNN article agrees: “I myself have never believed that marriage was such a magnificent institution that all gay people should be encouraged to embrace it. To me, being queer has always been about celebrating everything which makes us different.”
This chorus extended to outlets like Time magazine, where Howard Chua-Eoan wrote in a column about his experience of what he calls “bittersweet victory” on the night of the New York vote:
I had wandered down from a party about 10 blocks north, in Chelsea, one of New York City’s gay enclaves. The gathering at that apartment was slightly surreal. It appeared to be familiar: handsome young men flirting with one another over sweets and alcohol. But now they had a complex new dimension to navigate—albeit the kind of calculus that heterosexuals can do in their sleep…. Soon, we can have the kind of domestic life straight people have. One day, we may no longer even be gay. Just the people next door. No more parades.
He spends the remainder of his column lamenting the fact that “gay marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York” because of exemptions for religious institutions in the bill. “Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn’t the real thing,” he writes. “Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?”
Though Chua-Eoan later writes, “The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong,” he is at least partly mistaken about the realities of this interaction of church and state. When the relationships of “gay people” need societal validation, some of them, at least, have made it clear that it’s not all that wrong to stop dissenters from living according to their beliefs.
“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases, the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner,” said sexual activist and former ACLU attorney Chai Feldblum before President Obama appointed her to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where she now has power to try to enforce that view. “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,” she said.
Indeed, isn’t this the reason that the religious liberty exemptions in the New York marriage redefinition bill don’t include conscience exceptions for individuals or businesses? The idea is that everyone must accept the newly imposed values and live accordingly. A wedding photographer who can’t in good conscience use her artistic expression to make a same-sex ceremony look good as part of her creative work will be regarded no differently than the racist behind the lunch counter who doesn’t want to serve blacks. As Feldblum explained in The Brooklyn Law Review:
Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.
And if you’re a New York clerk who has a problem of conscience with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Gov. Andrew Cuomo says you need to give up your job, despite New York law that states otherwise. After all, as one Albany law professor who apparently doesn’t bat an eye about putting this on par with racism says, “There is just not a good legal argument that you have the right to discriminate.”
So if you’ve been on the fence about protecting marriage—wondering how someone else’s same-sex “marriage” will affect your marriage—now you’ve got a good bit of the answer: if you’re part of the 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman, prepare to be regarded as the Ku Klux Klan member next door—and for your children to be taught the same perspective at your local government-run school. As a post titled “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?” on the Queerty website put it:
They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The message is frequently that recognition for same-sex unions will have no effect on those who disagree with them, but the evidence clearly says otherwise. As Princeton politics professor Robert P. George notes, “once one buys into ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has traditionally been denominated as ‘marriage’ loses all intelligibility . . . one will come to regard one’s allegiance to sexual liberalism as a mark of urbanity and sophistication, and will likely find oneself looking down on those ‘ignorant,’ ‘intolerant,’ ‘bigoted’ people—those hicks and rubes—who refuse to get ‘on the right side of history.’”
Even the new “civil unions” bill in Illinois has begun down the path toward forcing dissenters into submission. On July 5, National Public Radio reported the following about “a battle . . . brewing over whether faith-based groups must change their practices and help gay couples adopt”:
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn called it a historic day for Illinois. “There are all kinds of different families in Illinois, and we understand and love one another . . . ,” Quinn says. But the law allowing civil unions has put the state and some faith-based organizations at odds.
Quinn’s comment about “all kinds of different families” is key. In the December/January 1994 issue of Out! magazine, noted homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile famously said that those like himself should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to “stigma, discrimination, and victimization”—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are travelling down. Instead, we tell them “it gets better” when, in fact, it does not.
Yes, marriage as the union of a man and a woman is practical. Its stabilizing nature is undeniable for those without blinders. As political analyst Mona Charen wrote in a recent column, “Much has been made by Democrats of the increasing inequality of income distribution in America. That inequality is real. But it’s not the result of tax cuts. It’s an artifact of family structure. And unless we find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow. Gay marriage is a distraction. The country depends on traditional marriage.”
Despite this, many filled the streets of New York to revel in the unraveling on June 24, just as they did during the parades the day after the legislature’s vote. USA Today made note of “one parade attendee dressed as half bride and half groom.” The symbolism couldn’t be any more poignant or clear: Not a bride, not a groom. Both and neither at the same time. Marriage but not marriage. The elimination of distinctions. The pursuit of “marriage equality” is nothing less than an assault on marriage integrity.
Brian Raum is a New York attorney who has defended marriage in numerous federal and state court cases and has provided legal input to New York legislators. He is senior counsel and head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is part of the legal team currently defending California’s marriage amendment in federal court.
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.20.2011 | 7:33am
Resh Galuta says:
If citizens can't vote for the candidate they consider best qualified for the office of town clerk, because the self-appointed coolness police have decided she's a "bigot," then so-called "gay" so-called "marriage" is adversely affecting everybody.
10.20.2011 | 10:21am
jason taylor says:
Nonsexual companionship is "non-traditional"? Where the heck did they get that idea?
10.20.2011 | 11:58am
AKO says:
20 years from now most of us will look back at the gay marriage discussion in the same way that we look back at slavery today. We will think "What a silly discussion, people are people, they should be able to do and be what they want and have the same rights as everyone else. Why should someone not be given the same rights as another based on their sexual preference or the color of their skin?"
10.20.2011 | 12:13pm
Nancy D. says:
Discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior does not depend on someone's race or ancestry or gender, thus to claim that to discriminate against sexual behavior that demeans the inherent dignity of the human person is to discriminate based on someone's race, ancestry, or gender, would be a lie from the start.
10.20.2011 | 12:28pm
Mike says:
Three items:
“Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn’t the real thing,” he writes. “Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?” – I don’t think there is any right to a wedding in a given church. If two Protestants came to a Catholic church and asked the priest to marry them, the priest would decline because the requirement is that at least one of the people be Catholic. The Protestant couple may be wonderful, Godly, spirit filled people, but the rule is that Catholic churches must marry a Catholic. If the government forced the priest to marry them – think how silly and chilling that would be. Think how silly and chilling it would be for the government to force the priest to marry a gay couple or polyamorous group. Good-by first amendment.
“… 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman…” I think to be precise the statement should be – as the union of “one” man and “one” woman – this change clearly states, rather than implies, that marriage must be monogamous as well as heterosexual. Polyamorous is not acceptable.
“Of course there are many other kinds of relationships … whether it’s open relationships or nonsexual companionship or polyamorous relationships.” Here is what I think is the underlying rub. While it’s true that gay marriage is not truly marriage in the Church’s eyes, there probably won’t be a lot of these marriages given the small population and the small fraction of those who may choose marriage. However, when marriage is now extended beyond the heterosexual monogamy that God intends, there is likely to be an increase in the acceptance and practice of polygamy (which is effectively a form of adultery). We can’t really know the long term negative social/moral impact that growing polygamy movement could have on society. Nor can we really know the impact on religious institutions and on the greater culture if we force priests, ministers, and rabbis to perform these types of ceremonies. However, I suspect that it won't be good.
“Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn’t the real thing,” he writes. “Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?” – I don’t think there is any right to a wedding in a given church. If two Protestants came to a Catholic church and asked the priest to marry them, the priest would decline because the requirement is that at least one of the people be Catholic. The Protestant couple may be wonderful, Godly, spirit filled people, but the rule is that Catholic churches must marry a Catholic. If the government forced the priest to marry them – think how silly and chilling that would be. Think how silly and chilling it would be for the government to force the priest to marry a gay couple or polyamorous group. Good-by first amendment.
“… 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman…” I think to be precise the statement should be – as the union of “one” man and “one” woman – this change clearly states, rather than implies, that marriage must be monogamous as well as heterosexual. Polyamorous is not acceptable.
“Of course there are many other kinds of relationships … whether it’s open relationships or nonsexual companionship or polyamorous relationships.” Here is what I think is the underlying rub. While it’s true that gay marriage is not truly marriage in the Church’s eyes, there probably won’t be a lot of these marriages given the small population and the small fraction of those who may choose marriage. However, when marriage is now extended beyond the heterosexual monogamy that God intends, there is likely to be an increase in the acceptance and practice of polygamy (which is effectively a form of adultery). We can’t really know the long term negative social/moral impact that growing polygamy movement could have on society. Nor can we really know the impact on religious institutions and on the greater culture if we force priests, ministers, and rabbis to perform these types of ceremonies. However, I suspect that it won't be good.
10.20.2011 | 12:56pm
Margaret says:
"In the wake of the New York Legislature’s decision to pass the so-called “Marriage Equality Act,” there has been a renewed discussion among homosexual activists over whether they really ought to be pursuing an institution historically rife with “heterosexual” values such as exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy."
A lot of heterosexuals clearly feel the same. Even (or especially?) those who promote "heterosexual" values often have a hard time keeping them. Perhaps this discussion should be less about who can marry whom and more about the values necessary to committed relationships.
A lot of heterosexuals clearly feel the same. Even (or especially?) those who promote "heterosexual" values often have a hard time keeping them. Perhaps this discussion should be less about who can marry whom and more about the values necessary to committed relationships.
10.20.2011 | 1:39pm
RL says:
I suspect that in 20 years we will look back on these debates more or less the way we now look back on the debates of 40-50 years ago about liberalized divorce law. We are now in a cultural situation in which there is effectively no social stigma against divorce and remarriage and no social stigma against divorced and remarried persons. There is, however, plenty of social stigma against "judging" people who are divorced and remarried, i.e., against asserting the view that a divorced person with a still-living ex-spouse is acting wrongly by remarrying, regardless of the reasons for the divorce. We're already getting close to that state of affairs with regard to homosexual conduct: There's not a lot of social stigma against it (although there is still more than there is against divorce and remarriage), and there's quite a bit of stigma against the traditional moral view on the subject. Just take a look at that teacher in New Jersey who's about to get fired for posting on Facebook that she hates the sin but loves the sinner.
10.20.2011 | 1:42pm
JDD says:
"Perhaps this discussion should be less about who can marry whom and more about the values necessary to committed relationships."
No, the discussion should be about both.
But only if you define marriage as just a committed relationship and nothing more. That's actually a bit of a re-framing of the conversation, and of the definition of what we're talking about.
Although you are absolutely right that the values of marriage are not easy to keep.
The 'values' necessary to a marriage include more than the values necessary for a 'committed relationship.' The values necessary for a marriage encompass such things as the interaction and bonding between two opposite genders of the human species, and their procreative ability, and their cooperative ability to teach and pass on the full expression - both masculine and feminine - of human experience.
As all of these things are intrinsically linked to one another, the discussion, as always, should be about all - not either/or.
No, the discussion should be about both.
But only if you define marriage as just a committed relationship and nothing more. That's actually a bit of a re-framing of the conversation, and of the definition of what we're talking about.
Although you are absolutely right that the values of marriage are not easy to keep.
The 'values' necessary to a marriage include more than the values necessary for a 'committed relationship.' The values necessary for a marriage encompass such things as the interaction and bonding between two opposite genders of the human species, and their procreative ability, and their cooperative ability to teach and pass on the full expression - both masculine and feminine - of human experience.
As all of these things are intrinsically linked to one another, the discussion, as always, should be about all - not either/or.
10.20.2011 | 2:20pm
patricksarsfield says:
When men and women couple, they often create new life. If a man can walk away from the woman afterwards, a lot of potential wards of the state are created. Thus, it is a good thing for the state to protect the unions of men and women and to encourage such heterosexual participants to make public their unions (e.g., married filing jointly status, etc.).
Likewise, due to the incredible power of male and female genetic material once mixed with one another to produce life, it is good for the state to ensure the union's exclusivity and permanence once the union is formed. Thus the panoply of laws favoring so-called "wedlock": fault and/or waiting period divorce laws, alimony and child support (if the union doesn't last) and laws against adultery and specifying intestate inheritance and the long-standing presumption in the law that children born out of the woman during the marriage are conclusively presumed to be the issue of the union.
This incredible power of semen and ovaries to form life when mixed together is simply not present when a man wants to couple with a man or when a woman wants to couple with a woman. No matter what the means or manner of genital interaction employed, no child will issue from homosexual coupling. In fact, if the two men (or women) in the union want to generate natural born children from themselves, the existing "wedlock" must be broken and the parent manque(e) must seek a mate of the opposite sex outside the union to contribute the needed opposite sex genetic material through natural or artificial mixing so that the parental enterprise can move forward to fruition.
Does the state have an interest in ensuring "wedlock" between men who seek an affective (or merely sexual) union with other men, but can under no circumstances create issue from such coupling? What is the state's interest in wedlock when the union is between people who are not going to create life as the result of their couplings? Why should the state be any more in favor of the union of two people of the same sex than it is of unions of three or more people of the same sex? No matter who couples with whom--so long as they stay on the homosexual side of the universe of possible mates--no issue will follow and the state arguably has no interest in restricting either participant's choice of sexual mates.
Now, it maybe pointed out that some heterosexual couples will not produce issue from their unions due to age or infertility or mutual desire not to create life and to use contraception instead. Okay but--and forgetting that people change their minds and women as late in life as the 60s or even older have birthed babies (cf., Genesis 17:17) --the difference is that the state would be a rather intrusive tyrant if it required couples to produce proof of fertility and desire to create life before issuing a marriage license to a heterosexual couple (or if it revoked the license if the couple had not produced issue within a more or less generous time limit). No such intrusiveness is involved in stating that marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples because homosexual unions will not produce issue if the participants stay within the wedlock.
Likewise, due to the incredible power of male and female genetic material once mixed with one another to produce life, it is good for the state to ensure the union's exclusivity and permanence once the union is formed. Thus the panoply of laws favoring so-called "wedlock": fault and/or waiting period divorce laws, alimony and child support (if the union doesn't last) and laws against adultery and specifying intestate inheritance and the long-standing presumption in the law that children born out of the woman during the marriage are conclusively presumed to be the issue of the union.
This incredible power of semen and ovaries to form life when mixed together is simply not present when a man wants to couple with a man or when a woman wants to couple with a woman. No matter what the means or manner of genital interaction employed, no child will issue from homosexual coupling. In fact, if the two men (or women) in the union want to generate natural born children from themselves, the existing "wedlock" must be broken and the parent manque(e) must seek a mate of the opposite sex outside the union to contribute the needed opposite sex genetic material through natural or artificial mixing so that the parental enterprise can move forward to fruition.
Does the state have an interest in ensuring "wedlock" between men who seek an affective (or merely sexual) union with other men, but can under no circumstances create issue from such coupling? What is the state's interest in wedlock when the union is between people who are not going to create life as the result of their couplings? Why should the state be any more in favor of the union of two people of the same sex than it is of unions of three or more people of the same sex? No matter who couples with whom--so long as they stay on the homosexual side of the universe of possible mates--no issue will follow and the state arguably has no interest in restricting either participant's choice of sexual mates.
Now, it maybe pointed out that some heterosexual couples will not produce issue from their unions due to age or infertility or mutual desire not to create life and to use contraception instead. Okay but--and forgetting that people change their minds and women as late in life as the 60s or even older have birthed babies (cf., Genesis 17:17) --the difference is that the state would be a rather intrusive tyrant if it required couples to produce proof of fertility and desire to create life before issuing a marriage license to a heterosexual couple (or if it revoked the license if the couple had not produced issue within a more or less generous time limit). No such intrusiveness is involved in stating that marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples because homosexual unions will not produce issue if the participants stay within the wedlock.
10.20.2011 | 2:20pm
Momofthree says:
AKO,
I am not totally decided on this issue, but your comment brings up an obvious question. How would you respond to a person who is "oriented" to 13 year old girls or oriented to five women at once or oriented to their sister?
I am not totally decided on this issue, but your comment brings up an obvious question. How would you respond to a person who is "oriented" to 13 year old girls or oriented to five women at once or oriented to their sister?
10.20.2011 | 2:56pm
Randy says:
Once again, today's young generation is the smartest of all, and the thousand generations that went before them are bigoted and stupid. Funny how that works.
10.20.2011 | 3:02pm
Mike Giles says:
So. Gay activists have finally admitted what their opponents said from the very beginning. This isn't about equality of gays and straights, it's about at least forcing their lifestyle down society's throat, if not replacing society's majority values with theirs. As a black man, I've always been more than a little irritated; when the claim was made that this "was just like the Black Civil Rights struggle". Uh, no. Blacks simply wanted the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. We were not demanding an entirely new set of rights. I also don't recall any attempt to make black cultural values the only ones allowed in this country. This reminds me of how the Constitutional prohibition against an "Established Church", has somehow metamorphosed into non religion becoming the state religion. It becoming the established church that all others are required to bend the knee to and support.
10.20.2011 | 3:25pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
What do you mean by "intrusive"? Surely it would be an extremely minor inconvenience to add a question like the following to a marriage license application: "Do you solemnly affirm your intention to have children if circumstances permit?" In the Catholic Church, people who answered no to that question would be marrying invalidly. If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities?
What do you mean by "intrusive"? Surely it would be an extremely minor inconvenience to add a question like the following to a marriage license application: "Do you solemnly affirm your intention to have children if circumstances permit?" In the Catholic Church, people who answered no to that question would be marrying invalidly. If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities?
10.20.2011 | 3:35pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
From day one the farce of "marriage equality" has been about the moral validation of homosexuality. Those who refuse to give moral approbation to homosexuality are haters and bigots, and must be treated as so by law. A so called "religious exemption" will never be accepted by the left and their homosexual allies. Anyone who thinks so is deluded. They will not stop until all we who believe in traditional, biblical sexual morality are firmly in the closet. Is not the irony sweet!
The problem that these people have, as the whole progressive agenda has, is that reality just won't cooperate. Just as the modern welfare state is proving unsustainable, so will the assertion that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Some call it natural law, certainly it is the Imago Dei, but every human being knows deep within their being that homosexuality is unnatural, that it is just not the way it is supposed to be.
Of course we live in a fallen world, and people will do what they do, and should be free to, but trying to turn the moral order upside down by passing laws that are upside down simply will not work.
The problem that these people have, as the whole progressive agenda has, is that reality just won't cooperate. Just as the modern welfare state is proving unsustainable, so will the assertion that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Some call it natural law, certainly it is the Imago Dei, but every human being knows deep within their being that homosexuality is unnatural, that it is just not the way it is supposed to be.
Of course we live in a fallen world, and people will do what they do, and should be free to, but trying to turn the moral order upside down by passing laws that are upside down simply will not work.
10.20.2011 | 5:52pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
people, they should be able to do and be what they want and have the same rights as everyone else. Why should someone not be given the same rights as another based on their sexual preference or the color of their skin?
People are not given rights. They have rights. Rights are fundamental safeguards to our ability to realize our natural ends as rational animals. They are not goodies dished out by the open-handed lord of the manor. That's why if the integrity of marriage had not already been subverted by no-fault divorce or by the celebration of infidelity, there would be no present outcry to play dress-up among the ruins. The restrictions of marriage would be seen for exactly what they are: restrictions, not benefits. (cf. "exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy.") Mr patricksarsfield had the right of it.
+ + +
If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities?
a) Marriage is not "about" having children. Rape can produce children, but is not accounted as marriage. (Except in primeval German tribal law: "the act makes the marriage." But that was rejected by Christendom and the Germans were converted and domesticated.)
b) The intentions of the couple do not matter. They may change their minds. Their methodology of contraception may fail. Etc. The union of a man and a woman is potentially child-bearing, regardless whether the potential is ultimately fulfilled. We build dams on rivers that remain in place even when the river is not in flood. We build safeguards into nuclear plants even when no potential threat is ever realized -- or intended.
People are not given rights. They have rights. Rights are fundamental safeguards to our ability to realize our natural ends as rational animals. They are not goodies dished out by the open-handed lord of the manor. That's why if the integrity of marriage had not already been subverted by no-fault divorce or by the celebration of infidelity, there would be no present outcry to play dress-up among the ruins. The restrictions of marriage would be seen for exactly what they are: restrictions, not benefits. (cf. "exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy.") Mr patricksarsfield had the right of it.
+ + +
If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities?
a) Marriage is not "about" having children. Rape can produce children, but is not accounted as marriage. (Except in primeval German tribal law: "the act makes the marriage." But that was rejected by Christendom and the Germans were converted and domesticated.)
b) The intentions of the couple do not matter. They may change their minds. Their methodology of contraception may fail. Etc. The union of a man and a woman is potentially child-bearing, regardless whether the potential is ultimately fulfilled. We build dams on rivers that remain in place even when the river is not in flood. We build safeguards into nuclear plants even when no potential threat is ever realized -- or intended.
10.20.2011 | 6:13pm
Felix says:
Mike Giles,
This issue is a lot more like the Civil Rights movement that you think. As the Black community worked against Jim Crow laws and for laws that would protect against racial discrimination, there were lots of hand-wringing editorials proclaiming that the end of modern civilization was nigh, too.
As for this editorial's claims of "the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves," it would be nice if someone, somewhere, actually provided meaningful proof of same. Especially since every reputable study that has been conducted on this has concluded that gay/lesbian relationships are inherently no worse off---as are the children raised within them.
I don't expect any of the naysayers to be convinced, however. What I do expect, however, is that the majority will in time be replaced by younger individuals who have been disabused of the notion that there is any moral dimension to homosexuality whatsoever.
This issue is a lot more like the Civil Rights movement that you think. As the Black community worked against Jim Crow laws and for laws that would protect against racial discrimination, there were lots of hand-wringing editorials proclaiming that the end of modern civilization was nigh, too.
As for this editorial's claims of "the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves," it would be nice if someone, somewhere, actually provided meaningful proof of same. Especially since every reputable study that has been conducted on this has concluded that gay/lesbian relationships are inherently no worse off---as are the children raised within them.
I don't expect any of the naysayers to be convinced, however. What I do expect, however, is that the majority will in time be replaced by younger individuals who have been disabused of the notion that there is any moral dimension to homosexuality whatsoever.
10.20.2011 | 6:26pm
The People of America says:
I completely agree that in a few years the battle for same sex marriage will be seen in the same way that the battle for equality between races is seen today. People are people, regardless of race, beliefs, gender, or sexuality! Stop all the hate, and accept that! Same sex couples deserve the right to get married just as any other couple. This is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government hasn't stepped in yet and made it clear to all of the United States. Same sex marriage is still marriage and is meant to be treated the same as any other marriage. All the opposition is solely based on "beliefs", WAKE UP PEOPLE! YOU CAN'T KEEP TRYING TO PASS LAWS BASED ON BELIEFS! You say your "God's children" but you are not acting like it! So what if two men want to get married, if they love each other, then no one has the right to stop them from getting married! Same sex marriage isn't going to change what marriage stands for, if anything, it will make it stronger. These people are fighting for the right to get married, they want to be accepted as equal humans with equal rights and benefits as any other married couple. It is wrong to deny them of that!
10.20.2011 | 6:33pm
a. mcewen says:
Oh good grief, not the Paul Cameron inference about the gay community - i.e. the claim that being gay is physically harmful. It's nonsense based upon ridiculous notions people have about sexual intercourse in the gay community, And he threw in the nonsense about the Queerty column. Read it first before making your judgement, folks. The guy was being strictly tongue-in-cheek. As for this piece, just the same old religious right nonsense wrapped in a new package.
10.20.2011 | 6:45pm
Ron says:
Felix,
Mike Giles is right on the money. There is absolutely no comparison to the prejudice Blacks had to endure with the agenda of homosexual activists to re-define marriage and family. None whatsoever. To claim SSM is about civil rights is mere leftist spin and intellectually dishonest.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence has long been in, but homosexual activists keep spinning against it: homosexual live shorter lives, engage in riskier behavior (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, anonymous sex), domestic abuse rates are higher than among heterosexual married couples, have higher rates of absenteeism in the work place, high rates of infidelity, their homes are more likely to be unstable and unsuitable for children, and children are more confused and behave more erratically and perform more poorly academically than children from married hetero homes. The only studies claiming kids in HS homes do well are unrepresentative (tiny, insignificant sampling size) and self-selected subjects identified by homosexual activist publications. The science is not on your side.
Mike Giles is right on the money. There is absolutely no comparison to the prejudice Blacks had to endure with the agenda of homosexual activists to re-define marriage and family. None whatsoever. To claim SSM is about civil rights is mere leftist spin and intellectually dishonest.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence has long been in, but homosexual activists keep spinning against it: homosexual live shorter lives, engage in riskier behavior (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, anonymous sex), domestic abuse rates are higher than among heterosexual married couples, have higher rates of absenteeism in the work place, high rates of infidelity, their homes are more likely to be unstable and unsuitable for children, and children are more confused and behave more erratically and perform more poorly academically than children from married hetero homes. The only studies claiming kids in HS homes do well are unrepresentative (tiny, insignificant sampling size) and self-selected subjects identified by homosexual activist publications. The science is not on your side.
10.20.2011 | 7:18pm
R Hampton says:
Wake me up when that anti-Gay marriage folks decide to get serious and tackle the only true threat to heterosexual marriages - divorce. Divorce. DIVORCE!
Do they actually think gay marriage is the reason why heterosexual marriage rates have been falling for decades? Do they actually think preventing gay marriage is going to make heterosexual marriage rates rise? Who are they trying to fool?
Do they actually think gay marriage is the reason why heterosexual marriage rates have been falling for decades? Do they actually think preventing gay marriage is going to make heterosexual marriage rates rise? Who are they trying to fool?
10.20.2011 | 7:23pm
Prosopon says:
I don't think we should be surprised to see that many homosexuals aren't enthusiastic about embracing hetero-normative modes of relationships, after all, we live in a world where such modes have little and less success.
I also don't think we should assume that all homosexuals feel the same way as the few quoted here. There are a great many homosexuals who genuinely want to get married and live in a relationship defined by monogamy, etc. Denying rights to the many because of the differing views of the few is wholly immoral.
If we denied rights to groups of people on the basis of a few and their differing understanding, then heterosexuals would not be permitted to marry, as more than a few have views that allow for adultery, swinging, promiscuity, etc.
I also don't think we should assume that all homosexuals feel the same way as the few quoted here. There are a great many homosexuals who genuinely want to get married and live in a relationship defined by monogamy, etc. Denying rights to the many because of the differing views of the few is wholly immoral.
If we denied rights to groups of people on the basis of a few and their differing understanding, then heterosexuals would not be permitted to marry, as more than a few have views that allow for adultery, swinging, promiscuity, etc.
10.20.2011 | 7:45pm
a. mcewen says:
Ron, your claims are not backed by facts but merely either junk science or studies taken of out context even after the authors said studies complain about how their work is being distorted. There is NO overwhelming preponderance for the things you claim.
10.20.2011 | 8:46pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
The Catholic Medical Association’s Homosexuality and Hope, www.cathmed.org, offers valuable information on homosexuality and same sex unions including, “Research on same-sex unions demonstrates that they are markedly different from marriage in that exclusivity and permanency are not present or desired in the vast majority of these unions. Same-sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted disease.[1]Physicians should caution their patients about the dangers of same-sex unions and advocate against children being placed in such unstable relationships. The overwhelming body of well-designed research demonstrates that the healthiest environment for child development is a home with a mother and father who are married.”[2]
The extensive research on the serious psychological, academic and social problems in youth raised in fatherless families demonstrates the vital importance of the presence of the father in the home for healthy child development. Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively, causes even more severe damage to a child because the essential role of the mother in establishing the ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships.
[1]D. O’Leary, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007): 149-68.
[2]Byrd, A.D. (2004). Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree. Journal of Law and Family Studies 6.2: 213.
The extensive research on the serious psychological, academic and social problems in youth raised in fatherless families demonstrates the vital importance of the presence of the father in the home for healthy child development. Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively, causes even more severe damage to a child because the essential role of the mother in establishing the ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships.
[1]D. O’Leary, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007): 149-68.
[2]Byrd, A.D. (2004). Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree. Journal of Law and Family Studies 6.2: 213.
10.20.2011 | 8:52pm
Felix says:
Ron,
Where is this "overwhelming preponderance of evidence?" Where is this science that you claim is not on my side? Do you actually believe that reciting baseless stereotypes about lesbian and gay individuals and families constitutes a rebuttal?
I don't disagree that many non-heterosexual individuals lead not-so-great lives, but the onus is on you to back the claim that this is due to the very fact of their being non-heterosexual, rather than the cumulative effect of others reacting to same.
Heck, at one time, social conservatives claimed that Blacks "live shorter lives, engage in riskier behavior (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, anonymous sex), domestic abuse rates are higher than among White married couples, have higher rates of absenteeism in the work place, high rates of infidelity, their homes are more likely to be unstable and unsuitable for children, and children are more confused and behave more erratically and perform more poorly academically than children from White hetero homes." This was eventually, and rightfully, seen for the abject racism that it is.
Mark Twain supposedly noted that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And you, good sir, are a bona fide poet.
Where is this "overwhelming preponderance of evidence?" Where is this science that you claim is not on my side? Do you actually believe that reciting baseless stereotypes about lesbian and gay individuals and families constitutes a rebuttal?
I don't disagree that many non-heterosexual individuals lead not-so-great lives, but the onus is on you to back the claim that this is due to the very fact of their being non-heterosexual, rather than the cumulative effect of others reacting to same.
Heck, at one time, social conservatives claimed that Blacks "live shorter lives, engage in riskier behavior (i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, anonymous sex), domestic abuse rates are higher than among White married couples, have higher rates of absenteeism in the work place, high rates of infidelity, their homes are more likely to be unstable and unsuitable for children, and children are more confused and behave more erratically and perform more poorly academically than children from White hetero homes." This was eventually, and rightfully, seen for the abject racism that it is.
Mark Twain supposedly noted that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And you, good sir, are a bona fide poet.
10.20.2011 | 8:55pm
Jason says:
I am gay. I have been in a long-term, wholly committed relationship with another man for over 6 years. We have a home together, we share our lives with one another completely. However, we live in a state that does not allow us to get married. As a result, we pay significantly higher taxes and have significantly fewer legal protections for our family. And yes, despite what some of you wish to believe, we are a family. Until and unless the United States becomes a theocracy instead of a free government, what right does someone else have to press their relgious views on my family and punish us for not sharing the same religious views?
I find it intriguing that the people who are fighting so hard against my family are making the issue of marriage be one about sex and not love. Marriage ISN'T about sex and SHOULDN'T be about sex, it IS and SHOULD BE about love. We "evil homosexuals" aren't destroying or redefining marriage, you're doing that yourselves with an unbelievable divorce rate. And I refuse to have some stranger's comments about polygamy or whatever represent MY feelings. I love my partner and I want to do whatever is necessary to protect our relationship legally. I challenge anyone to try to explain to me how one religion's views of my relationship should dictate law in this country without sounding like a bigot.
I find it intriguing that the people who are fighting so hard against my family are making the issue of marriage be one about sex and not love. Marriage ISN'T about sex and SHOULDN'T be about sex, it IS and SHOULD BE about love. We "evil homosexuals" aren't destroying or redefining marriage, you're doing that yourselves with an unbelievable divorce rate. And I refuse to have some stranger's comments about polygamy or whatever represent MY feelings. I love my partner and I want to do whatever is necessary to protect our relationship legally. I challenge anyone to try to explain to me how one religion's views of my relationship should dictate law in this country without sounding like a bigot.
10.20.2011 | 10:42pm
patricksarsfield says:
@David Nickol (and the Old Statistician) on the issue of the intrusiveness of State Questions concerning fertility in heterosexual unions:
D. Nickol asks:
"What do you mean by "intrusive"? Surely it would be an extremely minor inconvenience to add a question like the following to a marriage license application: "Do you solemnly affirm your intention to have children if circumstances permit?" In the Catholic Church, people who answered no to that question would be marrying invalidly. If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities? "
Because our black-robed overlords say so. No, not the Jesuits; the justices. The Court-defined "right to marital privacy" divined in jurisprudence such as the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision has been specifically recognized in connection with the issue of contraception.
As to why the State shouldn't ask about intent to have children while the Church can? The State is not a Church and no one needs to get married in the Catholic Church if they don't like the fact that the Church asks: "will you accept children willingly from God?
D. Nickol asks:
"What do you mean by "intrusive"? Surely it would be an extremely minor inconvenience to add a question like the following to a marriage license application: "Do you solemnly affirm your intention to have children if circumstances permit?" In the Catholic Church, people who answered no to that question would be marrying invalidly. If marriage is all about having children, why would it be "intrusive" to ask heterosexual couples to affirm that they are not trying to get the benefits of marriage with the intent of shirking the responsibilities? "
Because our black-robed overlords say so. No, not the Jesuits; the justices. The Court-defined "right to marital privacy" divined in jurisprudence such as the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision has been specifically recognized in connection with the issue of contraception.
As to why the State shouldn't ask about intent to have children while the Church can? The State is not a Church and no one needs to get married in the Catholic Church if they don't like the fact that the Church asks: "will you accept children willingly from God?
10.20.2011 | 10:54pm
Gil Costello says:
These two paragraphs capture it all for me:
"They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it."
"We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to “stigma, discrimination, and victimization”—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are travelling down. Instead, we tell them “it gets better” when, in fact, it does not."
When I asked a friend, an educator for more than 25 years, why she doesn't inform parents of what they are teaching children about sexuality, including the habit of inviting men from gay groups with no formal education in health to instruct children on how to enjoy anal sex safely (an impossibility), she responded with, "But Gil...they're just too ignorant.” And I said, "Like me." "Oh no!" she said. And I said, "But I am like them."
"They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it."
"We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to “stigma, discrimination, and victimization”—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are travelling down. Instead, we tell them “it gets better” when, in fact, it does not."
When I asked a friend, an educator for more than 25 years, why she doesn't inform parents of what they are teaching children about sexuality, including the habit of inviting men from gay groups with no formal education in health to instruct children on how to enjoy anal sex safely (an impossibility), she responded with, "But Gil...they're just too ignorant.” And I said, "Like me." "Oh no!" she said. And I said, "But I am like them."
10.20.2011 | 10:56pm
David Nickol says:
I know how much people hate the word "homophobia," but when a discussion of homosexuality takes place in which the anti-homosexual messages assume that the definition of "homosexual" is "gay male who regularly engages in anal intercourse, takes drugs and has risky sex thereby shortening his (average) lifespan, etc., etc.," we're usually dealing with homophobia. Why? Because even if there weren't gay men who didn't engage in those behaviors (and there are plenty), there are lesbians who never have anal intercourse, have sex that is *safer* than heterosexual intercourse, and so on. Two women having sex are just as homosexual as two men having sex. So once the arguments wander away from morality and start criticizing some stereotypical "gay lifestyle," what we have a fair amount of is men (almost never women) expressing how revolted they are by the idea of men having anal intercourse with each other.
10.20.2011 | 11:04pm
patricksarsfield says:
R Hampton writes:
"Wake me up when that anti-Gay marriage folks decide to get serious and tackle the only true threat to heterosexual marriages - divorce. Divorce. DIVORCE! "
"Only?" A bit of an overstatement. Mr. Hampton is right though in saying that Divorce is a very substantial threat to Marriage. Divorce and Gay Marriage are both retreats from the ideal of marriages for life that Christ spoke about so strongly and in contravention to what Moses had permitted. Moreover, Christ clearly recognized the potency of joining men and women together in the flesh. Thus, when Christ was asked about the permissibility of divorce in the eyes of God, He spoke about Marriage as a heterosexual life-long thing (or "res" to use the legal term):
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female?' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Divorce is clearly not part of Christ's plan, and--not coincidentally, it was permitted only sparingly in the US up until the 1960s. It certainly is a scourge now and also merits revisiting by the American Body Politic.
"Wake me up when that anti-Gay marriage folks decide to get serious and tackle the only true threat to heterosexual marriages - divorce. Divorce. DIVORCE! "
"Only?" A bit of an overstatement. Mr. Hampton is right though in saying that Divorce is a very substantial threat to Marriage. Divorce and Gay Marriage are both retreats from the ideal of marriages for life that Christ spoke about so strongly and in contravention to what Moses had permitted. Moreover, Christ clearly recognized the potency of joining men and women together in the flesh. Thus, when Christ was asked about the permissibility of divorce in the eyes of God, He spoke about Marriage as a heterosexual life-long thing (or "res" to use the legal term):
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female?' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Divorce is clearly not part of Christ's plan, and--not coincidentally, it was permitted only sparingly in the US up until the 1960s. It certainly is a scourge now and also merits revisiting by the American Body Politic.
10.20.2011 | 11:17pm
edmond says:
YOS: " people, they should be able to do and be what they want and have the same rights as everyone else. Why should someone not be given the same rights as another based on their sexual preference or the color of their skin?
"People are not given rights. They have rights. Rights are fundamental safeguards to our ability to realize our natural ends as rational animals."
What about:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Following your advice, it should be okay for americans to join the al quaeda and bomb the cities because it is what they want to do?
What do you mean by rational? Is sodomy rational to you?
"People are not given rights. They have rights. Rights are fundamental safeguards to our ability to realize our natural ends as rational animals."
What about:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Following your advice, it should be okay for americans to join the al quaeda and bomb the cities because it is what they want to do?
What do you mean by rational? Is sodomy rational to you?
10.20.2011 | 11:34pm
John says:
Patrick Sarsfield asks, "Does the state have an interest in ensuring "wedlock" between men who seek an affective (or merely sexual) union with other men, but can under no circumstances create issue from such coupling?"
You'll need to ask that of the six states (AZ, IL, ME, UT, IN, WI) that allow some heterosexual couples (close cousins) to marry only if they can't possibly reproduce. What is the state interest in wedlock for those couples that is different than that for same-sex couples?
And since a significant portion of same-sex couples do eventually raise children, what cutoff percentage do you propose that would delineate a rational line whereby a state might determine that it had an interest in the freedom of such couples to marry?
You'll need to ask that of the six states (AZ, IL, ME, UT, IN, WI) that allow some heterosexual couples (close cousins) to marry only if they can't possibly reproduce. What is the state interest in wedlock for those couples that is different than that for same-sex couples?
And since a significant portion of same-sex couples do eventually raise children, what cutoff percentage do you propose that would delineate a rational line whereby a state might determine that it had an interest in the freedom of such couples to marry?
10.21.2011 | 12:07am
John says:
Brian Raum attempts to place New York town clerks in the same class as private employees by hitching his claim to a poorly written ADF memo.
But town clerks aren't employees; they're agents of the state. Upon election, each of clerk swears under oath to be bound to the strictures of the state constitution and to administer the laws of the state without prejudice. There is no "conscience clause" or belief exception to that oath.
The ADF lawsuit is doomed to fail, which they surely must know. It's clear that the suit was filed purely as a PR ploy, not in a good faith effort to decide a matter of law.
But town clerks aren't employees; they're agents of the state. Upon election, each of clerk swears under oath to be bound to the strictures of the state constitution and to administer the laws of the state without prejudice. There is no "conscience clause" or belief exception to that oath.
The ADF lawsuit is doomed to fail, which they surely must know. It's clear that the suit was filed purely as a PR ploy, not in a good faith effort to decide a matter of law.
10.21.2011 | 5:05am
Michael PS says:
The primary purpose of civil marriage is not procreation, but filiation, creating the juridical link between father and child.
The law makes special provision for marriage in extremis (CC Art 169) and even for posthumous marriage (CC Art 171) This is unintelligible, unless filiation is a central purpose of marriage. What other public purpose can such marriages serve?
The law and particularly the Civil Code, should be clear, simple and certain. Now, same-sex couples are infertile by definition; the infertility of individual same-sex couples is adventitious, the result of age, pathology or choice, and their existence does not affect the character of marriage, as an institution. To rely on this distinction clearly falls within the legislator's margin of appreciation: laws are made for the general case.
Moreover, an infertile opposite-sex couple can make as if they have procreated In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
The law makes special provision for marriage in extremis (CC Art 169) and even for posthumous marriage (CC Art 171) This is unintelligible, unless filiation is a central purpose of marriage. What other public purpose can such marriages serve?
The law and particularly the Civil Code, should be clear, simple and certain. Now, same-sex couples are infertile by definition; the infertility of individual same-sex couples is adventitious, the result of age, pathology or choice, and their existence does not affect the character of marriage, as an institution. To rely on this distinction clearly falls within the legislator's margin of appreciation: laws are made for the general case.
Moreover, an infertile opposite-sex couple can make as if they have procreated In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
10.21.2011 | 9:25am
patricksarsfield says:
John writes about my prior post:
"You'll need to ask that of the six states (AZ, IL, ME, UT, IN, WI) that allow some heterosexual couples (close cousins) to marry only if they can't possibly reproduce. What is the state interest in wedlock for those couples that is different than that for same-sex couples? "
There is no question that politics leads to some inconsistent decisions in search for compromise. I am not familiar with the legislative history of those particular provisions, but the majority rule has been that there are bars on marriage within particular degrees of consanguinity. That seems the better approach.
Ironically, though, the minority approach you quote shows the very real difference between gay and heterosexual couplings that I have noted: heterosexual couplings absent some unusual situations DOES create the possibility of life. Precisely because of that reality, the state does need to regulate the consequences of heterosexual marriage. In most cases, such unions can be permitted so long as the various controls I have noted are in place (i.e., parental requirements to support the issue of the marriage, married filing jointly status, fault and/or waiting period divorce laws, alimony and child support decrees (if the union doesn't last) and laws against adultery and specifying intestate inheritance and the long-standing presumption in the law that children born out of the woman during the marriage are conclusively presumed to be the issue of the union). In the cases of heterosexual unions within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, additional controls are needed due to concerns with the genetic problems that might arise. In homosexual couplings, by contrast, there is no need for state concern with any issue arising from such an union: ipso facto there can't be any issue.
"You'll need to ask that of the six states (AZ, IL, ME, UT, IN, WI) that allow some heterosexual couples (close cousins) to marry only if they can't possibly reproduce. What is the state interest in wedlock for those couples that is different than that for same-sex couples? "
There is no question that politics leads to some inconsistent decisions in search for compromise. I am not familiar with the legislative history of those particular provisions, but the majority rule has been that there are bars on marriage within particular degrees of consanguinity. That seems the better approach.
Ironically, though, the minority approach you quote shows the very real difference between gay and heterosexual couplings that I have noted: heterosexual couplings absent some unusual situations DOES create the possibility of life. Precisely because of that reality, the state does need to regulate the consequences of heterosexual marriage. In most cases, such unions can be permitted so long as the various controls I have noted are in place (i.e., parental requirements to support the issue of the marriage, married filing jointly status, fault and/or waiting period divorce laws, alimony and child support decrees (if the union doesn't last) and laws against adultery and specifying intestate inheritance and the long-standing presumption in the law that children born out of the woman during the marriage are conclusively presumed to be the issue of the union). In the cases of heterosexual unions within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, additional controls are needed due to concerns with the genetic problems that might arise. In homosexual couplings, by contrast, there is no need for state concern with any issue arising from such an union: ipso facto there can't be any issue.
10.21.2011 | 10:20am
Jon Rowe says:
"Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively, causes even more severe damage to a child because the essential role of the mother in establishing the ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships."
And sometimes our assumptions are just wrong. The last I looked at the social science on this particular issue -- and it has been a few years -- the data showed very surprisingly, while lack of a father does correlate with all sorts of social problems, lack of a mother does not. That is, all the problems clearly evident in the data re single motherlessness are absent with single fathers.
And sometimes our assumptions are just wrong. The last I looked at the social science on this particular issue -- and it has been a few years -- the data showed very surprisingly, while lack of a father does correlate with all sorts of social problems, lack of a mother does not. That is, all the problems clearly evident in the data re single motherlessness are absent with single fathers.
10.21.2011 | 11:35am
Nancy D. says:
There is a difference between Sexual Love and sex, for Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate, which is why Sexual Love requires that a couple be complementary, to begin with. Only in a complementary relationship between a mature man and woman, united in Marriage, can two become one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new family.
10.21.2011 | 12:48pm
Michael PS says:
The People of America writes
"Same sex marriage is still marriage and is meant to be treated the same as any other marriage"
Well, in both Belgium and the Netherlands, the presumption of paternity ("The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father") only applies to opposite-sex marriage, leading some jurists to observe that these jurisdictions have conceded the name, but not the substance of marriage to same-sex couples.
If one agrees with Dean Carbonnier that « le cśur du mariage, ce n'est pas le couple, c'est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] it is difficult to disagree with this assessment.
It would be difficult to point to any other distinction between a marriage and Pact of Civil Solidarity.
"Same sex marriage is still marriage and is meant to be treated the same as any other marriage"
Well, in both Belgium and the Netherlands, the presumption of paternity ("The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father") only applies to opposite-sex marriage, leading some jurists to observe that these jurisdictions have conceded the name, but not the substance of marriage to same-sex couples.
If one agrees with Dean Carbonnier that « le cśur du mariage, ce n'est pas le couple, c'est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] it is difficult to disagree with this assessment.
It would be difficult to point to any other distinction between a marriage and Pact of Civil Solidarity.
10.21.2011 | 1:39pm
Great article that completely discredited itself at the end by quoting Mona Charen on income disparity and getting in the requisite slam on Democrats that is common by conservatives today. Yes, as gay marriage and civil unions become more common, we are seeing more bullying by the extreme social left and fringe radicals within the gay movement. But to use the gay marriage discussion to condescend the Democratic party on an issue (income disparity, the economy, etc.) where they are acting as the more moral party is absurd and intellectually dishonest.
As Christians, we're called to be a light to the world, and that includes our responsibility to take a Biblical stand on abortion and ANY lifestyle which glorifies sexual sin. But maybe Christians would quit getting slandered in the public eye if, in the name of those things above, we would quit blindly supporting a party and ideological propaganda (masquerading as media) who so willingly sell out to corporate greed and the extremely wealthy, which is in direct opposition to so many of Jesus' teachings.
As Christians, we're called to be a light to the world, and that includes our responsibility to take a Biblical stand on abortion and ANY lifestyle which glorifies sexual sin. But maybe Christians would quit getting slandered in the public eye if, in the name of those things above, we would quit blindly supporting a party and ideological propaganda (masquerading as media) who so willingly sell out to corporate greed and the extremely wealthy, which is in direct opposition to so many of Jesus' teachings.
10.21.2011 | 2:03pm
Felix says:
Nancy D., and Socially Conservative Evangeli,
You may have your own deeply-held spiritual/religious beliefs on what constitutes a good, proper marriage. It is your right to hold firm to these beliefs, and follow them in your lives and your houses of worship.
However, we live in a civil society, based upon secular law and non-discrimination in public accommodations. This entire discussion centers on who is allowed to partake of civil marriage. Your beliefs are as relevant to this topic as the Jewish and Muslim prohibitions on pork are to the legality of purchasing same.
Which is to say, not in the slightest.
You may have your own deeply-held spiritual/religious beliefs on what constitutes a good, proper marriage. It is your right to hold firm to these beliefs, and follow them in your lives and your houses of worship.
However, we live in a civil society, based upon secular law and non-discrimination in public accommodations. This entire discussion centers on who is allowed to partake of civil marriage. Your beliefs are as relevant to this topic as the Jewish and Muslim prohibitions on pork are to the legality of purchasing same.
Which is to say, not in the slightest.
10.21.2011 | 3:10pm
Mantronikk says:
Once again, sexual orientation is wrongly equated to race. A person's skin color is irrelevant, but a person's sexual conduct reveals their character. Homosexual conduct is condemed by God. You can't top that. God is eternal. God is our creator. God says homosexuality is a great sin. Case closed.
10.21.2011 | 3:34pm
jason taylor says:
"20 years from now most of us will look back at the gay marriage discussion in the same way that we look back at slavery today. We will think "What a silly discussion, people are people, they should be able to do and be what they want and have the same rights as everyone else. Why should someone not be given the same rights as another based on their sexual preference or the color of their skin?" "
AKO: Appealing to a supposedly inevitable future as an argument is simply a refined version of Appeal to Power. Telling people to change their opinions because of what people twenty years in the future believe is just saying might is right-before the might is conclusively demonstrated. If people twenty years in the future believe that, then people twenty years in the future will simply be wrong.
AKO: Appealing to a supposedly inevitable future as an argument is simply a refined version of Appeal to Power. Telling people to change their opinions because of what people twenty years in the future believe is just saying might is right-before the might is conclusively demonstrated. If people twenty years in the future believe that, then people twenty years in the future will simply be wrong.
10.21.2011 | 3:55pm
Janet says:
I view same sex marriage as the ultimate form of sexism. It it the greatest act of rejection of the opposite sex both privately and publicly. Sexism is already against the law. Why are sexists not being prosecuted?
10.21.2011 | 4:25pm
Brian English says:
"However, we live in a civil society, based upon secular law and non-discrimination in public accommodations. This entire discussion centers on who is allowed to partake of civil marriage."
France is arguably the most secular country in the world, yet it has rejected gay marriage. Michael PS can give you all the particulars.
France is arguably the most secular country in the world, yet it has rejected gay marriage. Michael PS can give you all the particulars.
10.21.2011 | 4:35pm
Mike Melendez says:
Felix writes: "However, we live in a civil society, based upon secular law and non-discrimination in public accommodations. This entire discussion centers on who is allowed to partake of civil marriage. Your beliefs are as relevant to this topic as the Jewish and Muslim prohibitions on pork are to the legality of purchasing same.
Which is to say, not in the slightest. "
You would silence all who have beliefs? Then who would not be silenced?
Non-discrimination does not mean empty. It means all beliefs contend for the consideration of the public at large. In the end, after the vote, someone is in the minority. The legality of purchasing pork is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion, though no one has raised it. I doubt it could be passed into law, but stranger things have happened. At least, stranger to me.
Which is to say, not in the slightest. "
You would silence all who have beliefs? Then who would not be silenced?
Non-discrimination does not mean empty. It means all beliefs contend for the consideration of the public at large. In the end, after the vote, someone is in the minority. The legality of purchasing pork is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion, though no one has raised it. I doubt it could be passed into law, but stranger things have happened. At least, stranger to me.
10.21.2011 | 4:53pm
Felix says:
Brian English,
"Secular" is no more the equivalent of "free of prejudice" than "pious" is to "law-abiding" (re certain Catholic priests).
jason taylor,
Enough people have lived through enough history to see why this issue will go the way every other major civil-rights issue has gone in the past. Today's society is simply, profoundly, unimaginably "wrong" in the eyes of generations long dead---what is their appraisal worth to us?
Janet,
Thank you for bringing a little levity to the topic!
"Secular" is no more the equivalent of "free of prejudice" than "pious" is to "law-abiding" (re certain Catholic priests).
jason taylor,
Enough people have lived through enough history to see why this issue will go the way every other major civil-rights issue has gone in the past. Today's society is simply, profoundly, unimaginably "wrong" in the eyes of generations long dead---what is their appraisal worth to us?
Janet,
Thank you for bringing a little levity to the topic!
10.21.2011 | 5:07pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael PS writes:
"If one agrees with Dean Carbonnier that « le cśur du mariage, ce n'est pas le couple, c'est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] it is difficult to disagree with this assessment. "
Thank you. I was not aware of the Dean's position but I think it gets to the "heart" of the matter. WedLOCK and the law of marriage in Western Society has historically been connected with the infinitely important question of who should be held responsible for support of the issue of a woman.
If the woman is not married and cannot support the issue on her own, she and/or her issue need to find some one to take care of them. In olden days--before conclusive paternity tests--that well might have proven a wild goose chase but for the institution of marriage. If the woman had enough sense not to couple with a man without their giving themselves in marriage to the other, she could rely on the force of law to ensure the mate's support for the issue of the union. The man would not be heard to contest the paternity of the union due to the conclusive presumption of paternity.
Of course, the wife could go out on the husband despite their union and conceive of another man (but not a woman). That is where another key element of wedLOCK comes in: the laws against adultery.
As Michael PS notes, that conclusive presumption makes no sense when homosexual coupling is at issue. If homosexuals of either sex join together in an exclusive relationship and never join one or the other's genetic material with that of someone outside their union, no natural issue ever will result. If the two homosexuals are male, the union will never produce issue out of either of them (although one of them could sire issue out of a stranger woman (stranger in that she is not part of the union). If the two are female, one can produce issue out of herself, but only if she joins her fertile ovary to a stranger male's semen.
"If one agrees with Dean Carbonnier that « le cśur du mariage, ce n'est pas le couple, c'est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] it is difficult to disagree with this assessment. "
Thank you. I was not aware of the Dean's position but I think it gets to the "heart" of the matter. WedLOCK and the law of marriage in Western Society has historically been connected with the infinitely important question of who should be held responsible for support of the issue of a woman.
If the woman is not married and cannot support the issue on her own, she and/or her issue need to find some one to take care of them. In olden days--before conclusive paternity tests--that well might have proven a wild goose chase but for the institution of marriage. If the woman had enough sense not to couple with a man without their giving themselves in marriage to the other, she could rely on the force of law to ensure the mate's support for the issue of the union. The man would not be heard to contest the paternity of the union due to the conclusive presumption of paternity.
Of course, the wife could go out on the husband despite their union and conceive of another man (but not a woman). That is where another key element of wedLOCK comes in: the laws against adultery.
As Michael PS notes, that conclusive presumption makes no sense when homosexual coupling is at issue. If homosexuals of either sex join together in an exclusive relationship and never join one or the other's genetic material with that of someone outside their union, no natural issue ever will result. If the two homosexuals are male, the union will never produce issue out of either of them (although one of them could sire issue out of a stranger woman (stranger in that she is not part of the union). If the two are female, one can produce issue out of herself, but only if she joins her fertile ovary to a stranger male's semen.
10.21.2011 | 5:18pm
Felix says:
Mike Melendez,
I would no more silence you than I would silence Jews and Muslims for avoiding pork. Unless, of course, they were to use their religious beliefs as a justification for enforcing this same proscription on society at large, regardless of one's beliefs, via civil law.
Stranger things have happened, indeed. Some years ago, Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis decided that they would refuse to carry passengers who had alcohol on their person (Google for "muslim taxi alcohol"). You should read the news articles that came out on this at the time, to see how the issue played out.
I'll spoil it for you: Religious restrictions did not carry the day. And for good reason.
And I suspect you wouldn't have been very happy if they had.
I would no more silence you than I would silence Jews and Muslims for avoiding pork. Unless, of course, they were to use their religious beliefs as a justification for enforcing this same proscription on society at large, regardless of one's beliefs, via civil law.
Stranger things have happened, indeed. Some years ago, Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis decided that they would refuse to carry passengers who had alcohol on their person (Google for "muslim taxi alcohol"). You should read the news articles that came out on this at the time, to see how the issue played out.
I'll spoil it for you: Religious restrictions did not carry the day. And for good reason.
And I suspect you wouldn't have been very happy if they had.
10.21.2011 | 6:13pm
Felix says:
patricksarsfield, and Michael PS,
You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples.
This is akin to traditional artists arguing that digital photography and graphical design cannot possibly be considered an art form, because there is no physical medium on which the work is fixed. And for as much philosophizing as they can muster on the great importance of being able to hold and touch the art, it would be plain to everyone else that the real point of the exercise is to close ranks and protect their turf from the upstarts.
Moreover, if your esteem for the historical roots of marriage were more than just a rhetorical facade, you would not conveniently wave away the fact that the woman was long considered the property of the husband (why do you think marital rape didn't even exist as a crime in many jurisdictions until the 1970s?), nor that polygamy has a long and respected tradition in the Bible.
Again, however, the logic-pretzels are tasty. I'm learning all these things about marriage that I've never heard articulated before, but are supposedly of such great importance to the institution that they justify writing laws that happen to coincide with anti-gay/lesbian prejudices.
You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples.
This is akin to traditional artists arguing that digital photography and graphical design cannot possibly be considered an art form, because there is no physical medium on which the work is fixed. And for as much philosophizing as they can muster on the great importance of being able to hold and touch the art, it would be plain to everyone else that the real point of the exercise is to close ranks and protect their turf from the upstarts.
Moreover, if your esteem for the historical roots of marriage were more than just a rhetorical facade, you would not conveniently wave away the fact that the woman was long considered the property of the husband (why do you think marital rape didn't even exist as a crime in many jurisdictions until the 1970s?), nor that polygamy has a long and respected tradition in the Bible.
Again, however, the logic-pretzels are tasty. I'm learning all these things about marriage that I've never heard articulated before, but are supposedly of such great importance to the institution that they justify writing laws that happen to coincide with anti-gay/lesbian prejudices.
10.21.2011 | 6:54pm
Brian English says:
""Secular" is no more the equivalent of "free of prejudice" than "pious" is to "law-abiding" (re certain Catholic priests)."
So France is homophobic? What do you think the basis for France's homphobia is, since it obviously is not religion based?
So France is homophobic? What do you think the basis for France's homphobia is, since it obviously is not religion based?
10.21.2011 | 7:05pm
Robin Duncan says:
I read this article coming with a Christian perspective. I have felt that marriage should be between one man and one woman. But I am sad to say ... I am getting so tired of this war against the "homosexual" agenda! People have the right to say, hey I am sorry i am booked that day - don't have any openings ... and people who work for the government have a duty to serve ALL citizens equally ... if they cannot in good conscience then they should prayerfully ask the LORD where they should work instead. I think this is a complex issue and i dont know all the facts, but can i just say....... homosexuality is a sin, but so is adultery, so is abortion, so is lust/pornography, so is .... divorce. The CHURCH is not even keeping its own house clean - we have the same divorce rate, abortion rate, lots living together before marriage .... we aren't suppose to police and condemn non believers ... we are suppose to share the gospel with them. And the Church is suppose to obey the Word of God. What must the LORD think of all this?!?!?!?!? Where is the LOVE? Where is the MERCY? Where is the TRUTH? Where is the FAITH? Are we trying to save this nation or the individuals in it?
10.21.2011 | 8:20pm
Felix says:
Brian English,
I don't presume to know what is in the heads of the Gallic populous. But there are certainly non-religious reasons that one might not be inclined to allow same-sex marriage, even if they are ultimately just as insubstantial: for example, an unwillingness to change one's mental image of what a marriage looks like. If you've lived all your life with it being the union of a man and a woman, it's a lot easier to just keep things the way they are, rather than have to adjust to a new and unfamiliar reality. This can be the case even if you have cordial relations with gay individuals and unmarried same-sex couples.
Religious arguments have a lot more prominence in this debate, however, because belief is an end in itself and as such is much more resistant to rebuttal, especially in the U.S. where it is privileged in many spheres. If someone says, "I'm used to marriage being between a man and a woman," the answer is merely "Your ontological comfort is no excuse to deny rights to others." If someone says, "My God says this is sinful," you can't exactly respond, "No, He does not" or "Your God is wrong."
I respond with, "Your beliefs cannot dictate civil law," but we've seen lately how even the basic notion of separation of church and state has been called into question. And so the debate rolls on.
I don't presume to know what is in the heads of the Gallic populous. But there are certainly non-religious reasons that one might not be inclined to allow same-sex marriage, even if they are ultimately just as insubstantial: for example, an unwillingness to change one's mental image of what a marriage looks like. If you've lived all your life with it being the union of a man and a woman, it's a lot easier to just keep things the way they are, rather than have to adjust to a new and unfamiliar reality. This can be the case even if you have cordial relations with gay individuals and unmarried same-sex couples.
Religious arguments have a lot more prominence in this debate, however, because belief is an end in itself and as such is much more resistant to rebuttal, especially in the U.S. where it is privileged in many spheres. If someone says, "I'm used to marriage being between a man and a woman," the answer is merely "Your ontological comfort is no excuse to deny rights to others." If someone says, "My God says this is sinful," you can't exactly respond, "No, He does not" or "Your God is wrong."
I respond with, "Your beliefs cannot dictate civil law," but we've seen lately how even the basic notion of separation of church and state has been called into question. And so the debate rolls on.
10.21.2011 | 9:34pm
Mike Melendez says:
Felix writes: "I would no more silence you than I would silence Jews and Muslims for avoiding pork. Unless, of course, they were to use their religious beliefs as a justification for enforcing this same proscription on society at large, regardless of one's beliefs, via civil law."
By your approach the existence of the sixth commandment in the Old Testament or TANAKH would be prohibited from becoming law. That's the one about murder.
You are confusing a form of government, Theocracy, with allowing all beliefs into the public marketplace, i.e. Democracy. In a democracy all views are welcome, but a majority of the public (or representatives) must be persuaded to make any law. We do not live in a theocracy. Prohibiting other people's beliefs from the marketplace is the essence of a theocracy. Yet to prevent it, you would establish the equivalent. Consider me unpersuaded by your self-contradictory claim.
Now, if you're talking freedom of religion, that's something else again. You establish it by allowing all belief systems to speak, not just one. Freedom from other people's beliefs takes us back to theocracy.
I read your pointer on Somali taxi drivers. Sounds like the majority prevailed, though in this case it was the economic majority. By the way, it wouldn't have bothered me. I see no problem with drivers refusing potential passengers with alcohol. I also see no problem with companies refusing to hire such drivers or the airport refusing to allow them in line. I would have a major problem with drivers who believed that, being required by law to take the passengers, but I might be outvoted.
People forget that the first amendment is about what the government is not allowed to do.
"You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples."
And you, Felix, are confusing your opinions with the universal. Share your opinions and argue for them, by all means, but don't pretend that they are a priori correct.
By your approach the existence of the sixth commandment in the Old Testament or TANAKH would be prohibited from becoming law. That's the one about murder.
You are confusing a form of government, Theocracy, with allowing all beliefs into the public marketplace, i.e. Democracy. In a democracy all views are welcome, but a majority of the public (or representatives) must be persuaded to make any law. We do not live in a theocracy. Prohibiting other people's beliefs from the marketplace is the essence of a theocracy. Yet to prevent it, you would establish the equivalent. Consider me unpersuaded by your self-contradictory claim.
Now, if you're talking freedom of religion, that's something else again. You establish it by allowing all belief systems to speak, not just one. Freedom from other people's beliefs takes us back to theocracy.
I read your pointer on Somali taxi drivers. Sounds like the majority prevailed, though in this case it was the economic majority. By the way, it wouldn't have bothered me. I see no problem with drivers refusing potential passengers with alcohol. I also see no problem with companies refusing to hire such drivers or the airport refusing to allow them in line. I would have a major problem with drivers who believed that, being required by law to take the passengers, but I might be outvoted.
People forget that the first amendment is about what the government is not allowed to do.
"You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples."
And you, Felix, are confusing your opinions with the universal. Share your opinions and argue for them, by all means, but don't pretend that they are a priori correct.
10.21.2011 | 9:36pm
patricksarsfield says:
Before launching into a series of confused ad hominems, Felix writes "@" me and Michael PS:
"You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples. "
UNTRUE. Sex, child support, paternity, adultery and wedLOCK are NOT peripheral to the concept of marriage. Rather,they are critical both to the marital relationship and to the large body of law that has developed around the relationship in both the US and Europe. In truth, there is probably more folk wisdom in the following children's ditty than in all of Felix's writing:
"First comes love; then comes marriage; then comes ___ and the baby carriage."
And society's concern long has been: who takes care of the baby and of the mother who provides most of the primary care of the baby? Thus, the presumption of paternity, the parental support obligation, the marital tax bracket, the divorce, alimony and child support laws and the laws of intestacy, all of which address the practical support needs flowing from the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material, which together create life.
"You are taking issues that are peripheral to the concept of marriage, and inflating their importance to rationalize denial of the institution to same-sex couples. "
UNTRUE. Sex, child support, paternity, adultery and wedLOCK are NOT peripheral to the concept of marriage. Rather,they are critical both to the marital relationship and to the large body of law that has developed around the relationship in both the US and Europe. In truth, there is probably more folk wisdom in the following children's ditty than in all of Felix's writing:
"First comes love; then comes marriage; then comes ___ and the baby carriage."
And society's concern long has been: who takes care of the baby and of the mother who provides most of the primary care of the baby? Thus, the presumption of paternity, the parental support obligation, the marital tax bracket, the divorce, alimony and child support laws and the laws of intestacy, all of which address the practical support needs flowing from the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material, which together create life.
10.21.2011 | 9:55pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Jon Rowe:
Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in
child development. Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive
cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to
distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby.
They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their
children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures. One
experiment, for instance, found that women are better than men at
identifying infant emotions such as sadness, fear, surprise, or joy.
Another study found that adolescents report that their mothers know
them better than their fathers.
Dr. Marianne Legato, who directs the
partnership for gender-specific medicine at Columbia University,
believes evolution has primed women to read nonverbal cues of infants.
She writes, “Women have to be better at reading the subtle and nuanced
language of human expression than man, so that they can better
determine the needs of their highly dependent, wordless infants.”
Also, numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their
mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger,
fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more
soothing.
The act of deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother is both cruel and narcissistic. The protection of children is a leading reason for opposition to the legalization of same sex unions.
Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in
child development. Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive
cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to
distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby.
They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their
children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures. One
experiment, for instance, found that women are better than men at
identifying infant emotions such as sadness, fear, surprise, or joy.
Another study found that adolescents report that their mothers know
them better than their fathers.
Dr. Marianne Legato, who directs the
partnership for gender-specific medicine at Columbia University,
believes evolution has primed women to read nonverbal cues of infants.
She writes, “Women have to be better at reading the subtle and nuanced
language of human expression than man, so that they can better
determine the needs of their highly dependent, wordless infants.”
Also, numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their
mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger,
fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more
soothing.
The act of deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother is both cruel and narcissistic. The protection of children is a leading reason for opposition to the legalization of same sex unions.
10.21.2011 | 11:02pm
Felix says:
Mike Melendez,
The point is not that any proscription that is reflected in religious belief cannot become civil law. The point is that religious belief cannot, on its own, dictate the law. There are ample reasons for civil law to prohibit murder that have nothing to do with religion---not least the notions of the social contract, the common good, and the fundamental question of what kind of society we want to live in.
If you want to argue that same-sex marriage should be prohibited by civil law, you will need to articulate a basis that is not built on religious belief. Note that the U.S. is not a straight democracy, but a *constitutional* democracy. Even if 99.9% of the population can agree that the law should reflect a particular intrusive religious belief---absent a compelling secular basis for same---the 0.1% have a First Amendment case that should, by all rights, be a slam dunk. (Hard to say for sure these days, however, given the makeup of the Supreme Court.)
You are certainly in a minority if you can countenance Muslim cabbies refusing such fares. I would agree with you that the taxi company could refuse to hire such drivers, or the airport disallow them from entering their taxi stands. But what if the cabbies asserted that it was their *right* to be hired, and to pick up passengers at the airport, while upholding their religious duty to refuse alcohol-carrying passengers? Because that is the direct analog of the position that the New York clerk noted in the article (who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses) has taken. That firing them from their position of public accommodation for refusing to affront their beliefs is in itself a violation of their religious freedom.
patricksarsfield,
Sex, child support, adultery and wedlock play a role in many marriages, to be sure---including same-sex ones. But in the eyes of the law (which is all that is at issue here) we do not delegitimize a marriage that lacks/has any, or even all of these elements. (Some of those can constitute a basis for divorce, but as long as both spouses are okay with it, none of those need affirm/negate the fact that they are in a bona fide civil marriage.)
Moreover, all of the existing marriage-related social and legal mechanisms that you cite work exactly the same way for same-sex couples as for infertile couples who adopt their children. Every woo-woo argument you've leveled about "the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material" can be aimed at the latter just as much as the former. Infertile couples usually don't receive this kind of abuse, however, because it is widely considered offensive and reflecting poorly on the person who dishes it out.
The point is not that any proscription that is reflected in religious belief cannot become civil law. The point is that religious belief cannot, on its own, dictate the law. There are ample reasons for civil law to prohibit murder that have nothing to do with religion---not least the notions of the social contract, the common good, and the fundamental question of what kind of society we want to live in.
If you want to argue that same-sex marriage should be prohibited by civil law, you will need to articulate a basis that is not built on religious belief. Note that the U.S. is not a straight democracy, but a *constitutional* democracy. Even if 99.9% of the population can agree that the law should reflect a particular intrusive religious belief---absent a compelling secular basis for same---the 0.1% have a First Amendment case that should, by all rights, be a slam dunk. (Hard to say for sure these days, however, given the makeup of the Supreme Court.)
You are certainly in a minority if you can countenance Muslim cabbies refusing such fares. I would agree with you that the taxi company could refuse to hire such drivers, or the airport disallow them from entering their taxi stands. But what if the cabbies asserted that it was their *right* to be hired, and to pick up passengers at the airport, while upholding their religious duty to refuse alcohol-carrying passengers? Because that is the direct analog of the position that the New York clerk noted in the article (who refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses) has taken. That firing them from their position of public accommodation for refusing to affront their beliefs is in itself a violation of their religious freedom.
patricksarsfield,
Sex, child support, adultery and wedlock play a role in many marriages, to be sure---including same-sex ones. But in the eyes of the law (which is all that is at issue here) we do not delegitimize a marriage that lacks/has any, or even all of these elements. (Some of those can constitute a basis for divorce, but as long as both spouses are okay with it, none of those need affirm/negate the fact that they are in a bona fide civil marriage.)
Moreover, all of the existing marriage-related social and legal mechanisms that you cite work exactly the same way for same-sex couples as for infertile couples who adopt their children. Every woo-woo argument you've leveled about "the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material" can be aimed at the latter just as much as the former. Infertile couples usually don't receive this kind of abuse, however, because it is widely considered offensive and reflecting poorly on the person who dishes it out.
10.22.2011 | 1:25am
Felix says:
Rick Fitzgibbons,
"The protection of children is a leading reason for opposition to the legalization of same sex unions?" What are you, a comedian?
Is "the protection of children" the reason why Republicans are opposed to same-sex marriage, when they have cut funding to programs like WIC and SCHIP that are explicitly intended to ensure the welfare of children and the mothers raising them?
Is "the protection of children" the reason the Catholic Church is opposed, when... (you know what goes here)
Is "the protection of children" the reason you are opposed, when no reputable scientific study has ever concluded that children are any worse off being raised in a same-sex family, and in some cases may even do better?
I will presume that the studies you reference fall within the realm of mainstream science. But would Dr. Marianne Legato agree with your assertion that "the act of deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother is both cruel and narcissistic?" Because I have a feeling that she would not only disagree with you, and point out that your conclusion is not a logical implication of her work and is rather a new claim in need of its own supporting evidence, I think she would be incensed to hear that her work is being misrepresented to justify anti-gay animus. It's not like this exact same pattern hasn't happened before, many many times....
"The protection of children is a leading reason for opposition to the legalization of same sex unions?" What are you, a comedian?
Is "the protection of children" the reason why Republicans are opposed to same-sex marriage, when they have cut funding to programs like WIC and SCHIP that are explicitly intended to ensure the welfare of children and the mothers raising them?
Is "the protection of children" the reason the Catholic Church is opposed, when... (you know what goes here)
Is "the protection of children" the reason you are opposed, when no reputable scientific study has ever concluded that children are any worse off being raised in a same-sex family, and in some cases may even do better?
I will presume that the studies you reference fall within the realm of mainstream science. But would Dr. Marianne Legato agree with your assertion that "the act of deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother is both cruel and narcissistic?" Because I have a feeling that she would not only disagree with you, and point out that your conclusion is not a logical implication of her work and is rather a new claim in need of its own supporting evidence, I think she would be incensed to hear that her work is being misrepresented to justify anti-gay animus. It's not like this exact same pattern hasn't happened before, many many times....
10.22.2011 | 2:24am
Nancy D. says:
To deny that there is an inherent, ordered nature in Marriage, is a lie from the start. Fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, children, two men, two women, one man and two women, two men and one woman, cannot live in relationship as husband and wife.
10.22.2011 | 7:05am
De Las Casas says:
The Acceptance of “Gay Marriage” in NY has caused much pain to Catholics who realize the transcendental nature of marriage. This hurts. I want to call out, “Why couldn’t they have created something new for their use rather than steal and mutilate the ancient heritage of others?”
I offer an imagined news article:
HEADLINES
Iconoclasts express Pride In Smashing the Sacred of the “Others”
"Muslims should be proud”
"So many people are proud of being New Yorkers today.”
After the dynamiting and destruction on the Silk Road of the giant, standing Buddhas Vairocana and Sakyamuni, measuring 55 and 37 metres (180 and 121 feet) high respectively which were the largest examples of standing Buddha carvings in the world Mullah Mohammed Omar stated, "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. We are destroying the statues in accordance with Islamic law."” The smaller of the two statues was built in 507, the larger in 554.
After the vote reshaping and reworking the oldest and most sacred cultural institution of all of history’s cultures Governor Andrew Cuomo said. "So many people are proud of being New Yorkers today. I think New York sent a message to the nation and I think it is going to resonate. and we are going to see real progress. The legacy of New York when it's at its best - New York is the progressive capital of the nation."
When interviewed both groups of destructors were dismissive of the feelings of huge numbers of people around the world whose sacred and precious entities they triumphantly destroyed with aggressive intolerance. In NY a massive “Gay Pride” Parade celebrated the dismemberment of the marriage institution which both anthropologists and philosophers maintain has always been the vital binding elemental component of all societies. This obviously implies ominous penumbral effects for a modern world already in a stage of advanced decomposition.
It had been a long similarly arduous battle for proponents of both of these iconoclasms. Initially, the statues were fired at for several days using anti-aircraft guns and artillery. This damaged them, but did not obliterate them. Later, the Taliban placed anti-tank mines at the bottom of the niches, so that when fragments of rock broke off from artillery fire, the statues would receive additional destruction from particles that set off the mines. In the end, the Taliban lowered men down the cliff face and placed explosives into holes in the Buddhas.
The story of this sacrilege is a apt parable describing the iconoclastic act of the New York legislature. In both cases the destruction was legally authorized by majority vote of the local governing councils, the NY Legislature and the Taliban governing body in Afganistan respectively.
I offer an imagined news article:
HEADLINES
Iconoclasts express Pride In Smashing the Sacred of the “Others”
"Muslims should be proud”
"So many people are proud of being New Yorkers today.”
After the dynamiting and destruction on the Silk Road of the giant, standing Buddhas Vairocana and Sakyamuni, measuring 55 and 37 metres (180 and 121 feet) high respectively which were the largest examples of standing Buddha carvings in the world Mullah Mohammed Omar stated, "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. We are destroying the statues in accordance with Islamic law."” The smaller of the two statues was built in 507, the larger in 554.
After the vote reshaping and reworking the oldest and most sacred cultural institution of all of history’s cultures Governor Andrew Cuomo said. "So many people are proud of being New Yorkers today. I think New York sent a message to the nation and I think it is going to resonate. and we are going to see real progress. The legacy of New York when it's at its best - New York is the progressive capital of the nation."
When interviewed both groups of destructors were dismissive of the feelings of huge numbers of people around the world whose sacred and precious entities they triumphantly destroyed with aggressive intolerance. In NY a massive “Gay Pride” Parade celebrated the dismemberment of the marriage institution which both anthropologists and philosophers maintain has always been the vital binding elemental component of all societies. This obviously implies ominous penumbral effects for a modern world already in a stage of advanced decomposition.
It had been a long similarly arduous battle for proponents of both of these iconoclasms. Initially, the statues were fired at for several days using anti-aircraft guns and artillery. This damaged them, but did not obliterate them. Later, the Taliban placed anti-tank mines at the bottom of the niches, so that when fragments of rock broke off from artillery fire, the statues would receive additional destruction from particles that set off the mines. In the end, the Taliban lowered men down the cliff face and placed explosives into holes in the Buddhas.
The story of this sacrilege is a apt parable describing the iconoclastic act of the New York legislature. In both cases the destruction was legally authorized by majority vote of the local governing councils, the NY Legislature and the Taliban governing body in Afganistan respectively.
10.22.2011 | 8:20am
Brian English says:
"I respond with, "Your beliefs cannot dictate civil law," but we've seen lately how even the basic notion of separation of church and state has been called into question. And so the debate rolls on."
All civil laws are dictated by various beliefs. If the majority accepts a certain view, then it becomes the law, no matter where the concept comes from. Religious people have just as much a right to vote as atheists.
Majority rule is only precluded when Constitutional rights are involved. The "rights" invoked in support of gay marriage -- the right to file joint tax returns, the right to unhindered hospital visitation, the right to a certain position in inheritance law -- simply do not rise to the Constitutional level.
By the way, are you willing to accept civil unions that address those various issues, but do not constitute marriage?
All civil laws are dictated by various beliefs. If the majority accepts a certain view, then it becomes the law, no matter where the concept comes from. Religious people have just as much a right to vote as atheists.
Majority rule is only precluded when Constitutional rights are involved. The "rights" invoked in support of gay marriage -- the right to file joint tax returns, the right to unhindered hospital visitation, the right to a certain position in inheritance law -- simply do not rise to the Constitutional level.
By the way, are you willing to accept civil unions that address those various issues, but do not constitute marriage?
10.22.2011 | 9:00am
Michael PS says:
Felix
As a matter of historical fact, you are quite wrong. Filiation has never been regarded as other than central to civil marriage, ever since the Roman jurist, Paulus wrote “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
It is no coincidence that mandatory civil marriage was introduced on 3 September 1791, by the same assembly that turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors.
The Civil Code contained no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
Le doyen Carbonnier (1908–2003) set out, in tabular form the law relating to unregulated cohabitation, PACS (both of which are open to same-sex and opposite sex couples) and marriage, (which is confined to opposite-sex couples. To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
In 2005, the French Senate published a report, in which it said “Preserving the presumption " is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.
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."
As everyone knows, in the Bčgles case, the two highest courts in France, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council have followed, as they invariably do, "la doctrine" of the jurists.
As a matter of historical fact, you are quite wrong. Filiation has never been regarded as other than central to civil marriage, ever since the Roman jurist, Paulus wrote “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
It is no coincidence that mandatory civil marriage was introduced on 3 September 1791, by the same assembly that turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors.
The Civil Code contained no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
Le doyen Carbonnier (1908–2003) set out, in tabular form the law relating to unregulated cohabitation, PACS (both of which are open to same-sex and opposite sex couples) and marriage, (which is confined to opposite-sex couples. To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
In 2005, the French Senate published a report, in which it said “Preserving the presumption " is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.
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."
As everyone knows, in the Bčgles case, the two highest courts in France, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council have followed, as they invariably do, "la doctrine" of the jurists.
10.22.2011 | 9:05am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Brian,
In another article, Matthew Schmitz simply dismissed the well- thought arguments of marriage conservatives with a swipe of the rhetorical hand. "This too shall pass", he said.
While marriage conservatives are ignored and dismissed, this post extensively quotes anti-marriage radicals. I have no problem with that, granted FirstThings also quoted the arguments of marriage conservatives.
Your article concludes with a litany of anti-gay talking points that negate the existence of marriage conservatives altogether.
If FirstThings can't intellectually discuss the points made by marriage conservatives, perhaps it should simply stop talking about GLBT people and marriage equality altogether. This selective blogging makes FirstThings appear to be biased and weak.
In another article, Matthew Schmitz simply dismissed the well- thought arguments of marriage conservatives with a swipe of the rhetorical hand. "This too shall pass", he said.
While marriage conservatives are ignored and dismissed, this post extensively quotes anti-marriage radicals. I have no problem with that, granted FirstThings also quoted the arguments of marriage conservatives.
Your article concludes with a litany of anti-gay talking points that negate the existence of marriage conservatives altogether.
If FirstThings can't intellectually discuss the points made by marriage conservatives, perhaps it should simply stop talking about GLBT people and marriage equality altogether. This selective blogging makes FirstThings appear to be biased and weak.
10.22.2011 | 9:39am
Nancy D. says:
One does not have to be one of the cast of characters in The Emperor's New Clothes, to understand the signs of the Time we are living in. No doubt, there are many who profess to be Christian while deny The Word of God from The Beginning:
"Have you not heard that from The Beginning God created them male and female and for THIS reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh...?"
"Have you not heard that from The Beginning God created them male and female and for THIS reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh...?"
10.22.2011 | 9:59am
Mike Melendez says:
Felix writes: "The point is that religious belief cannot, on its own, dictate the law."
We finally get you down to your crux. But even that you have wrong. The point is that no individual belief can dictate the law, including yours, at least not in a democracy. That you single out religion says more about you than the people you fault.
That a person believes something because of religious belief is as good a reason as any other, certainly better than the claim, "I'm right and you're wrong", no matter how eloquently stated. Persuading others is something else again. People are welcome to argue religious belief as the reason for a law, but odds are they won't persuade many.
Let's take it to the beginning: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It is speaking about practice not the basis of opinions. We can't have laws requiring everyone to pray the rosary. We can't have laws requiring everyone to attend the Mosque on Friday. We certainly can't have laws on apostasy. But note, there were no laws involved in the Muslim taxi drivers. And note, the laws about murder originate in the biblical commandment as do laws about theft. Even the laws on Civil Rights have a religious origin.
"..absent a compelling secular basis.." Who makes that judgement? What is a compelling secular basis? I find no such mention of such in the First Amendment. Apparently, you believe you can judge the Supreme Court. Yet that is the body for final determination of such issues. If you don't put your faith in them, then whom do you trust?
Like the rest of us, Felix, you live in your own context. Like many, you seem to be unable to see that context.
Felix writes: "But what if the cabbies asserted that it was their *right* to be hired, and to pick up passengers at the airport, while upholding their religious duty to refuse alcohol-carrying passengers?"
I've read nothing that suggested they did. Extending "rights" into everything is a secular argument not a religious one. From my (religious) viewpoint, "the right to pick up passengers at the airport" sounds silly in its pettiness as do many of the modern day secular claims of "rights". Religion speaks rather of duties, particularly owed to others. The entire idea that laws should apply to everyone comes from religion.
My basic point is a simple one. Remove the historical religious basis and our system of laws collapses. Work hard to find a total "secular basis" for that system and a new religion will be established, directly contrary to the First Amendment.
I say let's make our arguments as they are, seeking to persuade but accepting that others come from different places than we do.
We finally get you down to your crux. But even that you have wrong. The point is that no individual belief can dictate the law, including yours, at least not in a democracy. That you single out religion says more about you than the people you fault.
That a person believes something because of religious belief is as good a reason as any other, certainly better than the claim, "I'm right and you're wrong", no matter how eloquently stated. Persuading others is something else again. People are welcome to argue religious belief as the reason for a law, but odds are they won't persuade many.
Let's take it to the beginning: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It is speaking about practice not the basis of opinions. We can't have laws requiring everyone to pray the rosary. We can't have laws requiring everyone to attend the Mosque on Friday. We certainly can't have laws on apostasy. But note, there were no laws involved in the Muslim taxi drivers. And note, the laws about murder originate in the biblical commandment as do laws about theft. Even the laws on Civil Rights have a religious origin.
"..absent a compelling secular basis.." Who makes that judgement? What is a compelling secular basis? I find no such mention of such in the First Amendment. Apparently, you believe you can judge the Supreme Court. Yet that is the body for final determination of such issues. If you don't put your faith in them, then whom do you trust?
Like the rest of us, Felix, you live in your own context. Like many, you seem to be unable to see that context.
Felix writes: "But what if the cabbies asserted that it was their *right* to be hired, and to pick up passengers at the airport, while upholding their religious duty to refuse alcohol-carrying passengers?"
I've read nothing that suggested they did. Extending "rights" into everything is a secular argument not a religious one. From my (religious) viewpoint, "the right to pick up passengers at the airport" sounds silly in its pettiness as do many of the modern day secular claims of "rights". Religion speaks rather of duties, particularly owed to others. The entire idea that laws should apply to everyone comes from religion.
My basic point is a simple one. Remove the historical religious basis and our system of laws collapses. Work hard to find a total "secular basis" for that system and a new religion will be established, directly contrary to the First Amendment.
I say let's make our arguments as they are, seeking to persuade but accepting that others come from different places than we do.
10.22.2011 | 10:51am
Monique Shrive says:
The rise and acceptance of homosexuality usually signals the death throws of a civilization. However in this case, the insidious, pervasive and persecutive character of the Homosexual Front, is a battle cry against Heaven .. one of the many in the end times.
10.22.2011 | 10:57am
Elastico says:
Homosexuality is unnatural. One need go no further than Darwin. Species adapt and choose in order to survive, in the moment and then to ultimately pass along their genes. Each species has its unique, definitive sexual act in order to pass along their genes. Homosexuality is thus contrary to natural selection/evolution.
10.22.2011 | 11:50am
C. Met says:
Your "62 percent oppose" poll is not correct, and it is disingenuous for you to portray a majority of Americans as opposed to gay marriage. Do a search for "gay marriage polls" and you will find:
from April: CNN: 51% favor, 47% oppose
from May: Gallup: 53% favor, 45% oppose
from July: ABC News/Wapo: 51% in favor, 45% oppose
from September: AP/NCC: 53% favor, 44% oppose
What does it say about your argument that you have to lie about how much people support it?
from April: CNN: 51% favor, 47% oppose
from May: Gallup: 53% favor, 45% oppose
from July: ABC News/Wapo: 51% in favor, 45% oppose
from September: AP/NCC: 53% favor, 44% oppose
What does it say about your argument that you have to lie about how much people support it?
10.22.2011 | 12:14pm
Michael PS says:
Felix
As a matter of historical fact, you are quite wrong. Filiation has never been regarded as other than central to civil marriage, ever since the Roman jurist, Paulus wrote “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
It is no coincidence that mandatory civil marriage was introduced on 3 September 1791, by the same assembly that turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors.
The Civil Code contained no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
Le doyen Carbonnier (1908–2003) set out, in tabular form the law relating to unregulated cohabitation, PACS (both of which are open to same-sex and opposite sex couples) and marriage, (which is confined to opposite-sex couples. He could find no significant difference between a PACS and a marriage, other than the presumption of paternity. To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
In 2005, the French Senate published a report, in which it said “Preserving the presumption “is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant” adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.
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."
As a matter of historical fact, you are quite wrong. Filiation has never been regarded as other than central to civil marriage, ever since the Roman jurist, Paulus wrote “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
It is no coincidence that mandatory civil marriage was introduced on 3 September 1791, by the same assembly that turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors.
The Civil Code contained no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
Le doyen Carbonnier (1908–2003) set out, in tabular form the law relating to unregulated cohabitation, PACS (both of which are open to same-sex and opposite sex couples) and marriage, (which is confined to opposite-sex couples. He could find no significant difference between a PACS and a marriage, other than the presumption of paternity. To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
In 2005, the French Senate published a report, in which it said “Preserving the presumption “is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant” adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.
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."
10.22.2011 | 12:29pm
Michael PS says:
You might well wish to consider the following criticism by the eminent French Jurist, A. Mirkovic. Himself a supporter of SSM, he puts his opponents’ case very fairly and succinctly. As a citizen, Prof. Merkovic is free to advance his own views; as one of the greatest living French jurists, he would never stoop to misrepresenting his opponents’ arguments.
“Even today, in 2011, in commenting on the decision 2010-92 QPC, [the decision of the highest French courts rejecting SSM] some authors consider that marriage is based on human reproduction. “In regard to marriage, persons of different sex, and persons of the same sex are not in the same situation because marriage includes the perspective of procreation. With regard to procreation, either natural or imitated in the case of adoption, the first may indeed procreate (or make as if they had procreated), while the latter cannot. If some male-female couples do not breed, it is for reasons of their own, subjective (advanced age, pathologic infertility, choice not to have children); same-sex couples cannot procreate together due to objective incapacity. The difference in situation justifies the difference in treatment, namely access to marriage. (…). The legislature must therefore reaffirm the specificity of the marriage, not only among other life-styles for couples, but as the foundational institution of the family.” This is only the confirmation of the doctrine of the 1990s. But we are now in 2011. This should not in any case prejudice the options open and the legitimization of same-sex marriage.” [« Le mariage, c’est un homme et une femme », JCPG, n°6, 7 février 2011, p.134 – My translation]
It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laďcité as France, no one has suggested that these views are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.
“Even today, in 2011, in commenting on the decision 2010-92 QPC, [the decision of the highest French courts rejecting SSM] some authors consider that marriage is based on human reproduction. “In regard to marriage, persons of different sex, and persons of the same sex are not in the same situation because marriage includes the perspective of procreation. With regard to procreation, either natural or imitated in the case of adoption, the first may indeed procreate (or make as if they had procreated), while the latter cannot. If some male-female couples do not breed, it is for reasons of their own, subjective (advanced age, pathologic infertility, choice not to have children); same-sex couples cannot procreate together due to objective incapacity. The difference in situation justifies the difference in treatment, namely access to marriage. (…). The legislature must therefore reaffirm the specificity of the marriage, not only among other life-styles for couples, but as the foundational institution of the family.” This is only the confirmation of the doctrine of the 1990s. But we are now in 2011. This should not in any case prejudice the options open and the legitimization of same-sex marriage.” [« Le mariage, c’est un homme et une femme », JCPG, n°6, 7 février 2011, p.134 – My translation]
It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laďcité as France, no one has suggested that these views are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.
10.22.2011 | 1:35pm
Cecil says:
There was a famous architect who built a house for his youngest son, containing a very beautoiful modern kitchen. After going on a cruise, he returned and visited his son's new house, finding, to his horror, that his son was keeping a couple of pigs in that beautiful kitchen. When a man ruts around in every open sewer he can find, he should expect to cut his life expectancy down by 20 years.
10.22.2011 | 7:25pm
patricksarsfield says:
Felix writes this argument:
"Moreover, all of the existing marriage-related social and legal mechanisms that you cite work exactly the same way for same-sex couples as for infertile couples who adopt their children. Every woo-woo argument you've leveled about "the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material" can be aimed at the latter just as much as the former. Infertile couples usually don't receive this kind of abuse, however, because it is widely considered offensive and reflecting poorly on the person who dishes it out. "
Not so. A heterosexual couple doesn't usually know it is unable to conceive going into the marriage (at least for first marriages). And many an infertile heterosexual couple ends up being fertile after a child is adopted. The presumption of paternity makes sense in a heterosexual marriage but not in a homosexual marriage involving either sex. No child will be delivered by either of two male homosexuals and no siring can be done by either of two feamale homosexuals. It is a plain matter of fact that no gay couple CAN produce natural children from the coupling of the two with one another.
As to the attack on my supposed offensiveness, that is an emotional ad hominem that ignores the very real differences between the occasionally infertile heterosexual couple and the always infertile homosexual couple. The implications of that difference have been explained by me several times in prior posts and Felix's post raised no other new arguments that need addressing.
"Moreover, all of the existing marriage-related social and legal mechanisms that you cite work exactly the same way for same-sex couples as for infertile couples who adopt their children. Every woo-woo argument you've leveled about "the powerful mixture of male and female gentic material" can be aimed at the latter just as much as the former. Infertile couples usually don't receive this kind of abuse, however, because it is widely considered offensive and reflecting poorly on the person who dishes it out. "
Not so. A heterosexual couple doesn't usually know it is unable to conceive going into the marriage (at least for first marriages). And many an infertile heterosexual couple ends up being fertile after a child is adopted. The presumption of paternity makes sense in a heterosexual marriage but not in a homosexual marriage involving either sex. No child will be delivered by either of two male homosexuals and no siring can be done by either of two feamale homosexuals. It is a plain matter of fact that no gay couple CAN produce natural children from the coupling of the two with one another.
As to the attack on my supposed offensiveness, that is an emotional ad hominem that ignores the very real differences between the occasionally infertile heterosexual couple and the always infertile homosexual couple. The implications of that difference have been explained by me several times in prior posts and Felix's post raised no other new arguments that need addressing.
10.22.2011 | 11:04pm
Felix says:
De Las Casas,
Yes, allow same-sex couples to marry is perfectly analogous to the Taliban dynamiting representations of the Buddha. By that logic, would the abolishment of Jim Crow laws be on par with the destruction of one of the Jewish Temples?
Brian English,
Any law based solely on religion falls afoul of the First Amendment; on this count the Supreme Court has been consistent. The only exception to that scrutiny that I can recall is the use of "In God we trust" and the like---ceremonial bits that can hardly be argued as an infringement of someone's rights.
Civil unions would be perfectly acceptable, if that were the legal instrument used by all couples (opposite- and same-sex alike) and "marriage" as a term were stripped of legal force. Separate is not equal.
Michael PS,
So with all your historical citations for the quintessential importance of filiation and the presumption of paternity, I take it you are every bit as opposed to infertile couples marrying as same-sex couples.
Mike Melendez,
My argument is based only on the "belief" that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is fundamentally and historically suspect (same as with race, sex, national origin et al.), and the guarantee of equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The view that our system of law requires religion as a basis is a tangent too large to address here. I'll simply point out that religious belief can also tilt in favor of same-sex marriage, and while such faiths are in the minority, enacting law in favor of a religious majority on the merit of its being a majority is Constitutionally impermissible. The law can't pick winning and losing religions.
Courts, naturally, make the judgment about what does and does not pass muster as an acceptable secular basis for law. I fail to see why this judgment is as much in the eye of the beholder as you seem to suggest; courts make decisions on "compelling state interests" all the time. The only ambiguity I can think of is when "community standards" are brought into play---and those certainly can't overstep Constitutional rights.
As for not trusting the Supreme Court, the classic example is the /Dred Scott/ decision. The hope, of course, is that things set themselves right in time.
The Muslim cabbies didn't lobby for laws protecting their no-alcohol policy, because they didn't have anywhere near the political support needed to make that happen. On the other hand, conscience laws protecting the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain medications (e.g. birth control pills) have been passed in a number of states. I think that is every bit as silly in its pettiness as the supposed "right" of Muslim cabbies to refuse passengers with alcohol, but many others obviously don't feel the same way.
Monique Shrive,
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. If the end times come, Boston will be the first to burn!
Elastico,
Actually, homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of animal species. You may want to read the much-decorated book, _And Tango Makes Three_.
Michael PS,
Yes, as I said earlier, there can certainly be non-religiously-based arguments made against same-sex marriage. I've yet to see any that have any more heft than sectarian ones, however.
Messr. Mirkovic says that couples can "make as if they had procreated" in the case of adoption, without explaining precisely why this pleasant little fiction cannot also be extended to same-sex couples, or should be extended to those who adopt a child of a different race. And he calls pathologic infertility a "subjective" incapacity. Color me unimpressed.
Cecil,
I share your distaste for undercooked pork, but that is really not relevant to this discussion.
patricksarsfield,
So I take it you are as opposed to a woman who has had a hysterectomy marrying a man, as you are a person marrying another person of the same sex?
Suggesting that the condition of an infertile couple is "occasional" while ignorant of the medical facts thereof is also rather offensive. Do you tell these couples that all they need to do is keep trying, and enjoy the attempts while they're at it?
Yes, allow same-sex couples to marry is perfectly analogous to the Taliban dynamiting representations of the Buddha. By that logic, would the abolishment of Jim Crow laws be on par with the destruction of one of the Jewish Temples?
Brian English,
Any law based solely on religion falls afoul of the First Amendment; on this count the Supreme Court has been consistent. The only exception to that scrutiny that I can recall is the use of "In God we trust" and the like---ceremonial bits that can hardly be argued as an infringement of someone's rights.
Civil unions would be perfectly acceptable, if that were the legal instrument used by all couples (opposite- and same-sex alike) and "marriage" as a term were stripped of legal force. Separate is not equal.
Michael PS,
So with all your historical citations for the quintessential importance of filiation and the presumption of paternity, I take it you are every bit as opposed to infertile couples marrying as same-sex couples.
Mike Melendez,
My argument is based only on the "belief" that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is fundamentally and historically suspect (same as with race, sex, national origin et al.), and the guarantee of equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The view that our system of law requires religion as a basis is a tangent too large to address here. I'll simply point out that religious belief can also tilt in favor of same-sex marriage, and while such faiths are in the minority, enacting law in favor of a religious majority on the merit of its being a majority is Constitutionally impermissible. The law can't pick winning and losing religions.
Courts, naturally, make the judgment about what does and does not pass muster as an acceptable secular basis for law. I fail to see why this judgment is as much in the eye of the beholder as you seem to suggest; courts make decisions on "compelling state interests" all the time. The only ambiguity I can think of is when "community standards" are brought into play---and those certainly can't overstep Constitutional rights.
As for not trusting the Supreme Court, the classic example is the /Dred Scott/ decision. The hope, of course, is that things set themselves right in time.
The Muslim cabbies didn't lobby for laws protecting their no-alcohol policy, because they didn't have anywhere near the political support needed to make that happen. On the other hand, conscience laws protecting the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain medications (e.g. birth control pills) have been passed in a number of states. I think that is every bit as silly in its pettiness as the supposed "right" of Muslim cabbies to refuse passengers with alcohol, but many others obviously don't feel the same way.
Monique Shrive,
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. If the end times come, Boston will be the first to burn!
Elastico,
Actually, homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of animal species. You may want to read the much-decorated book, _And Tango Makes Three_.
Michael PS,
Yes, as I said earlier, there can certainly be non-religiously-based arguments made against same-sex marriage. I've yet to see any that have any more heft than sectarian ones, however.
Messr. Mirkovic says that couples can "make as if they had procreated" in the case of adoption, without explaining precisely why this pleasant little fiction cannot also be extended to same-sex couples, or should be extended to those who adopt a child of a different race. And he calls pathologic infertility a "subjective" incapacity. Color me unimpressed.
Cecil,
I share your distaste for undercooked pork, but that is really not relevant to this discussion.
patricksarsfield,
So I take it you are as opposed to a woman who has had a hysterectomy marrying a man, as you are a person marrying another person of the same sex?
Suggesting that the condition of an infertile couple is "occasional" while ignorant of the medical facts thereof is also rather offensive. Do you tell these couples that all they need to do is keep trying, and enjoy the attempts while they're at it?
10.23.2011 | 6:42am
Michael PS says:
Felix
Thank you for your thoughtful responses
M. Mirkovic’s point was that same-sex couples are a readily identifiable class; after all, a person's sex is recorded in the Civil Register, whereas "infertile couples," do not really constitute a class at all. That is what the jurists mean by calling their infertility "subjective" or individual. Such individuals may be suffering from a range of pathologies, they may be too old, or it may be simply a question of volition. Some of these conditions may appear to be irremediable, whereas others are plainly not. Besides, some conditions that, in the past, were irremediable are now treatable and it would be a bold legislator who attempted to anticipate such advances.
Further, Mirkovic raises the question of “imitated procreation.” In France, this idea has long been at the centre of discussion about same-sex joint plenary adoption: an infertile opposite-sex couple can “make as if they have procreated” [« faire comme s'ils avaient procréé »] In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
Now, I have repeatedly stressed that the state’s interest in marriage is not to promote procreation, but to establish filiation, the vital link between generations, and that it seeks to ensure, as far as possible in a free and democratic society, that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide. This concern is equally applicable to the fictional filiation [filiation fictive] of adoption; the biological bond is lacking, enhancing the importance of the social and psychological factors, which the juridical bond validates. This also applies to assisted reproduction, using donated gametes. Similar considerations would apply to surrogate gestation in those jurisdictions that permit such arrangements; in France, they are excluded by the general rule of the Civil Code that only things in commerce can be the subject of an agreement and trading in people is a crime.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses
M. Mirkovic’s point was that same-sex couples are a readily identifiable class; after all, a person's sex is recorded in the Civil Register, whereas "infertile couples," do not really constitute a class at all. That is what the jurists mean by calling their infertility "subjective" or individual. Such individuals may be suffering from a range of pathologies, they may be too old, or it may be simply a question of volition. Some of these conditions may appear to be irremediable, whereas others are plainly not. Besides, some conditions that, in the past, were irremediable are now treatable and it would be a bold legislator who attempted to anticipate such advances.
Further, Mirkovic raises the question of “imitated procreation.” In France, this idea has long been at the centre of discussion about same-sex joint plenary adoption: an infertile opposite-sex couple can “make as if they have procreated” [« faire comme s'ils avaient procréé »] In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
Now, I have repeatedly stressed that the state’s interest in marriage is not to promote procreation, but to establish filiation, the vital link between generations, and that it seeks to ensure, as far as possible in a free and democratic society, that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide. This concern is equally applicable to the fictional filiation [filiation fictive] of adoption; the biological bond is lacking, enhancing the importance of the social and psychological factors, which the juridical bond validates. This also applies to assisted reproduction, using donated gametes. Similar considerations would apply to surrogate gestation in those jurisdictions that permit such arrangements; in France, they are excluded by the general rule of the Civil Code that only things in commerce can be the subject of an agreement and trading in people is a crime.
10.23.2011 | 8:32am
Nancy D. says:
Felix, the only question is, how can two men or two women be united in Marriage when two men and two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife?
10.23.2011 | 12:40pm
Michael PS says:
Felix
As a footnote, Jurisprudence has established that the discovery, after the marriage, that one of the spouses is sterile nullifies the marriage as it amounts to an error as to an essential quality of the person under Article 180 C civ.(TGI Avranches, 10 juill. 1973 ; D. 1974, p. 174, note Guiho and Paris, 26 mars 1982 ; Gaz. Pal. 1982,II, p.519, note J.M.)
As a footnote, Jurisprudence has established that the discovery, after the marriage, that one of the spouses is sterile nullifies the marriage as it amounts to an error as to an essential quality of the person under Article 180 C civ.(TGI Avranches, 10 juill. 1973 ; D. 1974, p. 174, note Guiho and Paris, 26 mars 1982 ; Gaz. Pal. 1982,II, p.519, note J.M.)
10.23.2011 | 2:15pm
Felix says:
Michael PS,
Same-sex couples being readily identifiable as a class seems to me an argument in favor of marriage equality---they are, after all, of a class that has historically been discriminated against, and so any measure that treats them differently should be subject to strict scrutiny.
If you are willing to take cutting-edge medical treatments into account to render infertility a potentially non-permanent, "subjective" condition, then you need also consider gender-reassignment surgery---which in many jurisdictions, is a premise to change the officially recorded sex of the individual. By that light, sex itself doesn't seem all that objective, either.
This notion of "imitated procreation" has two problems. One---to my knowledge---this has never been invoked to deny a couple of one race from adopting a child of another race. Which, to me, betrays the intellectual honesty with which this argument is wielded. Two, "makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier" has already been answered by child psychology and other disciplines: same-sex families have no handicap in this realm. Three, "the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a 'non-standard' family" amounts to a society-wide heckler's veto, which in my view most certainly does not deserve to be reflected in jurisprudence.
I can accept your point that the state’s interest in marriage is to establish filiation, but see no reason why "fictional filiation" cannot be extended to same-sex couples with any more difficulty than opposite-sex ones. Our legal system is one that treats corporations as people, despite these entities not having a pulse, breath, or even any biological organs of their own; I don't think pretending that two individuals of the same sex are the parents of their adopted child will pose particularly challenging.
Nancy D.,
There are thousands upon thousands of same-sex families out there, that have grown and thrived and raised healthy, strong new additions to our population. If you would get to know a few of them, I think you'll find that the notion of "husband and wife" isn't as centrally important to marriage as you seem to think it is.
Same-sex couples being readily identifiable as a class seems to me an argument in favor of marriage equality---they are, after all, of a class that has historically been discriminated against, and so any measure that treats them differently should be subject to strict scrutiny.
If you are willing to take cutting-edge medical treatments into account to render infertility a potentially non-permanent, "subjective" condition, then you need also consider gender-reassignment surgery---which in many jurisdictions, is a premise to change the officially recorded sex of the individual. By that light, sex itself doesn't seem all that objective, either.
This notion of "imitated procreation" has two problems. One---to my knowledge---this has never been invoked to deny a couple of one race from adopting a child of another race. Which, to me, betrays the intellectual honesty with which this argument is wielded. Two, "makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child possible or, at least, easier" has already been answered by child psychology and other disciplines: same-sex families have no handicap in this realm. Three, "the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a 'non-standard' family" amounts to a society-wide heckler's veto, which in my view most certainly does not deserve to be reflected in jurisprudence.
I can accept your point that the state’s interest in marriage is to establish filiation, but see no reason why "fictional filiation" cannot be extended to same-sex couples with any more difficulty than opposite-sex ones. Our legal system is one that treats corporations as people, despite these entities not having a pulse, breath, or even any biological organs of their own; I don't think pretending that two individuals of the same sex are the parents of their adopted child will pose particularly challenging.
Nancy D.,
There are thousands upon thousands of same-sex families out there, that have grown and thrived and raised healthy, strong new additions to our population. If you would get to know a few of them, I think you'll find that the notion of "husband and wife" isn't as centrally important to marriage as you seem to think it is.
10.23.2011 | 4:29pm
Felix says:
Michael PS,
Are you saying that such discovery of sterility is acceptable grounds for a divorce/nullification, or that the state will unilaterally nullify the marriage even if the spouses wish to remain in union nonetheless? Because I seriously doubt the latter would be the case, in any developed nation.
Are you saying that such discovery of sterility is acceptable grounds for a divorce/nullification, or that the state will unilaterally nullify the marriage even if the spouses wish to remain in union nonetheless? Because I seriously doubt the latter would be the case, in any developed nation.
10.23.2011 | 6:12pm
patricksarsfield says:
Felix writes:
"So I take it you are as opposed to a woman who has had a hysterectomy marrying a man, as you are a person marrying another person of the same sex?
Suggesting that the condition of an infertile couple is "occasional" while ignorant of the medical facts thereof is also rather offensive. Do you tell these couples that all they need to do is keep trying, and enjoy the attempts while they're at it? "
This is what is called a strawman. The state has no right to mandate generation by every heterosexual couple, nor otherwise to intrude on their privacy, according to well-established jurisprudence going back at least to Griswold. As I have pointed out, though, there is a basic difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples: most heterosexual couples in which the wife is of childbearing age can generate new life from sexual intercourse of the one with the other. Whether it is 90 percent or only 60% makes no substantial difference. The important difference is: NO homosexual couple can--not 10%, not 5% but 0. That is not an "offensive" statement; that is the facts of life.
"So I take it you are as opposed to a woman who has had a hysterectomy marrying a man, as you are a person marrying another person of the same sex?
Suggesting that the condition of an infertile couple is "occasional" while ignorant of the medical facts thereof is also rather offensive. Do you tell these couples that all they need to do is keep trying, and enjoy the attempts while they're at it? "
This is what is called a strawman. The state has no right to mandate generation by every heterosexual couple, nor otherwise to intrude on their privacy, according to well-established jurisprudence going back at least to Griswold. As I have pointed out, though, there is a basic difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples: most heterosexual couples in which the wife is of childbearing age can generate new life from sexual intercourse of the one with the other. Whether it is 90 percent or only 60% makes no substantial difference. The important difference is: NO homosexual couple can--not 10%, not 5% but 0. That is not an "offensive" statement; that is the facts of life.
10.23.2011 | 6:18pm
Gil Costello says:
Nancy D.,
You ask, "Felix, the only question is, how can two men or two women be united in Marriage when two men and two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife?"
Please don't confuse the debate with what is obvious in truth.
You ask, "Felix, the only question is, how can two men or two women be united in Marriage when two men and two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife?"
Please don't confuse the debate with what is obvious in truth.
10.23.2011 | 6:31pm
Gil Costello says:
Nancy D.,
Felix writes,
"There are thousands upon thousands of same-sex families out there, that have grown and thrived and raised healthy, strong new additions to our population. If you would get to know a few of them, I think you'll find that the notion of 'husband and wife' isn't as centrally important to marriage as you seem to think it is."
What gay activists like Felix understand is that it takes decades of scientific research to dismantle a theory based not on actual data but on invented data. In the meantime, they can assault children in sex education classes based on theories that amount to nothing other than theories to substantiate a lie. Why wait for conclusive evidence of these theories? Let's assault children now, and figure it out later. It's like Hitler's theory that Jews are the cause of all our problems. Let's get rid of Jews now and then discuss later whether the theories are correct or not.
Felix writes,
"There are thousands upon thousands of same-sex families out there, that have grown and thrived and raised healthy, strong new additions to our population. If you would get to know a few of them, I think you'll find that the notion of 'husband and wife' isn't as centrally important to marriage as you seem to think it is."
What gay activists like Felix understand is that it takes decades of scientific research to dismantle a theory based not on actual data but on invented data. In the meantime, they can assault children in sex education classes based on theories that amount to nothing other than theories to substantiate a lie. Why wait for conclusive evidence of these theories? Let's assault children now, and figure it out later. It's like Hitler's theory that Jews are the cause of all our problems. Let's get rid of Jews now and then discuss later whether the theories are correct or not.
10.23.2011 | 7:05pm
Gil Costello says:
On what principle do we decide to indoctrinate children into embracing the lie of anal sex being harmless if one wears a condom, and that these violent acts against the body are intimate acts? There is certainly no scientific evidence to support this lie. Kevin Jennings heads the movement supported by President Obama to continue this violent indoctrination on the principles of sexual liberation. This assault on children, now being practiced on 6-year-olds in Massachusetts, is a modern holocaust. At precisely what age these children who embrace these teachings die a premature death is irrelevant. The fact that the principle in itself is formally adopted as a mission from our president through his appointee establishes a holocaust.
10.23.2011 | 7:40pm
Gil Costello says:
My concern is that throughout history, the lie of any social movement always has its scapegoats, those sacrificed on the altar of the principles of a new way. And in the sexual revolution, children are the obvious scapegoats, which make it easy for the vanguards of the sexual revolution, for children have no real voice in politics.
10.23.2011 | 7:52pm
Felix says:
patricksarsfield,
Since you're so fixated on the (in)ability of a same-sex couple to produce children, I would point out that it is, in fact, possible for a male to become pregnant. If that male were born a female, and then undergone gender-reassignment surgery without modification to the genitals, then his uterus will often remain in perfect working order. So yes, some same-sex couples can very well produce children.
Which is not to say there is merit in your argument-by-popularity. Infertile opposite-sex couples are different from same-sex ones, because most fertile couples are opposite-sex? Do you suppose mixed-race marriages should be prohibited, too, on the grounds that most marriages are same-race? Or mixed-religion marriages?
If there were a state where the majority of couples were same-sex, with adopted children, you would find it equitable that opposite-sex couples are not allowed to marry?
Gil Costello,
I'm sure that those who opposed abolition, female suffrage or civil rights for minorities would have loved if the ramifications of these changes were studied for decades before being green-lighted. Somehow I doubt, however, that they would have considered any study that contradicted their own prejudices as representing sound science. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Oh, and LOL Hitler. Yes, teaching children that some families have a daddy and a daddy or a mommy and a mommy is perfectly tantamount to gassing six million Jews. Do you even read what you type? Do you realize that resorting to this kind of rhetoric is a clear sign that your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on?
Oh, and anal sex is a popular activity among opposite-sex couples too, you know. It's not my cup of tea, but at least I have a clue as to what it's like, and how much a female partner can enjoy it (when done right).
Since you're so fixated on the (in)ability of a same-sex couple to produce children, I would point out that it is, in fact, possible for a male to become pregnant. If that male were born a female, and then undergone gender-reassignment surgery without modification to the genitals, then his uterus will often remain in perfect working order. So yes, some same-sex couples can very well produce children.
Which is not to say there is merit in your argument-by-popularity. Infertile opposite-sex couples are different from same-sex ones, because most fertile couples are opposite-sex? Do you suppose mixed-race marriages should be prohibited, too, on the grounds that most marriages are same-race? Or mixed-religion marriages?
If there were a state where the majority of couples were same-sex, with adopted children, you would find it equitable that opposite-sex couples are not allowed to marry?
Gil Costello,
I'm sure that those who opposed abolition, female suffrage or civil rights for minorities would have loved if the ramifications of these changes were studied for decades before being green-lighted. Somehow I doubt, however, that they would have considered any study that contradicted their own prejudices as representing sound science. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Oh, and LOL Hitler. Yes, teaching children that some families have a daddy and a daddy or a mommy and a mommy is perfectly tantamount to gassing six million Jews. Do you even read what you type? Do you realize that resorting to this kind of rhetoric is a clear sign that your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on?
Oh, and anal sex is a popular activity among opposite-sex couples too, you know. It's not my cup of tea, but at least I have a clue as to what it's like, and how much a female partner can enjoy it (when done right).
10.23.2011 | 9:39pm
Euripides says:
While same sex attraction may or may not be inborn, the outward expression of sexual preference is a moral question and not a question of innate consequence, nor is it a civil right. The same is true of the outward expression of heterosexuality as well. Why should the people of the United States allow the state to dictate changing the moral basis of the majority population in order to appease the sexual expression of a tiny minority?
Like it or not, homosexual behavior (not the same as same-sex attraction) crosses the social boundaries of moral custom and moral behavior. To claim homosexual behavior is akin to race or gender is to propose a false analogy. There is no such thing as equality of morality. Yet gay activists will insist that their particular moral ideal must be the only valid moral standard and therefore must be protected by law.
Once the state can dictate the morality of homosexuality, even to the church, where does the power of the state end?
Like it or not, homosexual behavior (not the same as same-sex attraction) crosses the social boundaries of moral custom and moral behavior. To claim homosexual behavior is akin to race or gender is to propose a false analogy. There is no such thing as equality of morality. Yet gay activists will insist that their particular moral ideal must be the only valid moral standard and therefore must be protected by law.
Once the state can dictate the morality of homosexuality, even to the church, where does the power of the state end?
10.23.2011 | 11:52pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Nancy D. hit the nail on the head with her question:
"Felix, the only question is, how can two men or two women be united in Marriage when two men and two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife?"
Exactly. Isn't that the real issue? Can marriage be between equal partners, or must there be a superior husband and an inferior wife? What if the wife refused to be inferior and demanded that they both take the gender-neutral "spouse" label? Would that be a "marriage"?
"Felix, the only question is, how can two men or two women be united in Marriage when two men and two women cannot live in relationship as husband and wife?"
Exactly. Isn't that the real issue? Can marriage be between equal partners, or must there be a superior husband and an inferior wife? What if the wife refused to be inferior and demanded that they both take the gender-neutral "spouse" label? Would that be a "marriage"?
10.24.2011 | 1:23am
Felix says:
Euripides,
It is by no means self-evident that there is any moral dimension to one's sexual orientation and expression of that sexual orientation whatsoever. I trust you have evidence of this claim that does not require accepting the tenets of a religious faith?
And last I checked, the state hasn't dictated the morality of anything, let alone to any church. The Catholic Church seems perfectly able to consider abortion to be a moral evil despite /Roe v. Wade/ and the laws supporting it.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Why do you consider "wife" tantamount to "inferior?" I certainly hope your notion of an ideal marriage doesn't require that one person be on top...
It is by no means self-evident that there is any moral dimension to one's sexual orientation and expression of that sexual orientation whatsoever. I trust you have evidence of this claim that does not require accepting the tenets of a religious faith?
And last I checked, the state hasn't dictated the morality of anything, let alone to any church. The Catholic Church seems perfectly able to consider abortion to be a moral evil despite /Roe v. Wade/ and the laws supporting it.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Why do you consider "wife" tantamount to "inferior?" I certainly hope your notion of an ideal marriage doesn't require that one person be on top...
10.24.2011 | 4:16am
Michael PS says:
Felix
In giving evidence to a commission of the National Assembly [the Pécresse Report] Pierre Lévy-Soussan [a pupil of Lacan and one of the most eminent Freudian psychiatrists in France] is of the same opinion: “It is in the child’s best interests to join a nuclear family that is already socially accepted so that he or she does not have to take on the additional task, following a history of abandonment, of adapting to a family that is, for whatever reason, ‘non-standard’.” He believes that in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings.
The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.” The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.
As to the studies that appear to show the contrary (and there are no clinical studies, based on psychoanalysis) few countries allow adoption of a child by two persons of the same sex, and legislation allowing this type of adoption is very recent and has, in fact, led to very few adoptions. The lack of objectivity in this area is blatant. The studies in question deal, rather, with children born of a heterosexual relationship and raised by a biological parent and his or her companion – a situation that is absolutely not comparable with the establishment of a dual same-sex filiation for a child from outside the couple.
In giving evidence to a commission of the National Assembly [the Pécresse Report] Pierre Lévy-Soussan [a pupil of Lacan and one of the most eminent Freudian psychiatrists in France] is of the same opinion: “It is in the child’s best interests to join a nuclear family that is already socially accepted so that he or she does not have to take on the additional task, following a history of abandonment, of adapting to a family that is, for whatever reason, ‘non-standard’.” He believes that in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings.
The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.” The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.
As to the studies that appear to show the contrary (and there are no clinical studies, based on psychoanalysis) few countries allow adoption of a child by two persons of the same sex, and legislation allowing this type of adoption is very recent and has, in fact, led to very few adoptions. The lack of objectivity in this area is blatant. The studies in question deal, rather, with children born of a heterosexual relationship and raised by a biological parent and his or her companion – a situation that is absolutely not comparable with the establishment of a dual same-sex filiation for a child from outside the couple.
10.24.2011 | 6:17am
Nancy D. says:
It appears that there are some who deny the self-evident truth that all persons, regardless of race or ancestry, have been created equal in dignity while being complementary as male and female. Can someone please, out of respect for all persons, monitor this post so that those who desire to pervert the content and post demeaning statements are not allowed to continue?
10.24.2011 | 7:37am
patricksarsfield says:
Felix's latest response to patricksarsfield:
"Since you're so fixated on the (in)ability of a same-sex couple to produce children, I would point out that it is, in fact, possible for a male to become pregnant. If that male were born a female, and then undergone gender-reassignment surgery without modification to the genitals, then his uterus will often remain in perfect working order. So yes, some same-sex couples can very well produce children."
This is a reference to a situation like that portrayed on that famous cover of a shorthaired pregnant person on the cover of USN&WR whom the magazine called a man (but famously added a question mark after the word man). In such a case, I suppose, a person whom Felix would call male COULD well become pregnant, but only if "he" had a sexual coupling with "another" male in such a way as to accept that male's semen into "his" uterus "in perfect working order" (to use Felix's own term). However one dresses up that situation, though, that coupling would amount to heterosexual intercourse in which a male deposits semen into a uterus. In truth, Felix's own characterization admits too much and actually reinforces my repeatedly stated point.
"Since you're so fixated on the (in)ability of a same-sex couple to produce children, I would point out that it is, in fact, possible for a male to become pregnant. If that male were born a female, and then undergone gender-reassignment surgery without modification to the genitals, then his uterus will often remain in perfect working order. So yes, some same-sex couples can very well produce children."
This is a reference to a situation like that portrayed on that famous cover of a shorthaired pregnant person on the cover of USN&WR whom the magazine called a man (but famously added a question mark after the word man). In such a case, I suppose, a person whom Felix would call male COULD well become pregnant, but only if "he" had a sexual coupling with "another" male in such a way as to accept that male's semen into "his" uterus "in perfect working order" (to use Felix's own term). However one dresses up that situation, though, that coupling would amount to heterosexual intercourse in which a male deposits semen into a uterus. In truth, Felix's own characterization admits too much and actually reinforces my repeatedly stated point.
10.24.2011 | 8:58am
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Felix
The need for a mother in child development is documented by numerous studies. British researcher John Bowlby first brought to light the unique importance of the mother-child relationship after he observed a consistent pattern of disrupted relationships and later adult psychopathology (Bowlby, 1944). Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood (Kobak, 1999, p. 23). Bowlby concluded that the attachment between mother and child is critical for a child’s healthy social-emotional development, and that mother and child are biologically designed to form this essential bond.
As Margaret Ainsworth continued studying Bowlby’s attachment ideas, she found that when mothers consistently responded positively to their child’s needs and autonomy in exploring, the child received the sense of security needed to thrive (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). If that sense of security was threatened by her absence or lack of sensitivity, fear activated the child to try to restore the mother-child bond. Fear that was not appropriately addressed resulted in feelings of depression, anxiety, and aggression, initiating pathways associated with later social-emotional struggles (Kobak, 1999; Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993).
The state has a responsibility to protect children from the present, harmful social experiment of deliberately depriving them of the well documented need of children for the complimentary parenting of a father and a mother.
The need for a mother in child development is documented by numerous studies. British researcher John Bowlby first brought to light the unique importance of the mother-child relationship after he observed a consistent pattern of disrupted relationships and later adult psychopathology (Bowlby, 1944). Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood (Kobak, 1999, p. 23). Bowlby concluded that the attachment between mother and child is critical for a child’s healthy social-emotional development, and that mother and child are biologically designed to form this essential bond.
As Margaret Ainsworth continued studying Bowlby’s attachment ideas, she found that when mothers consistently responded positively to their child’s needs and autonomy in exploring, the child received the sense of security needed to thrive (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). If that sense of security was threatened by her absence or lack of sensitivity, fear activated the child to try to restore the mother-child bond. Fear that was not appropriately addressed resulted in feelings of depression, anxiety, and aggression, initiating pathways associated with later social-emotional struggles (Kobak, 1999; Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993).
The state has a responsibility to protect children from the present, harmful social experiment of deliberately depriving them of the well documented need of children for the complimentary parenting of a father and a mother.
10.24.2011 | 10:01am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
If the mother had a job and the father didn't, and a few weeks after the birth of their child, the mother went back to work, and the father stayed home and cared for the child, and the father took on traditionally female gender roles, he cooked and cleaned, and even wore an apron around the house, would that confuse the "complimentary parenting of a father and a mother"?
What if their complimentariness was opposite of traditional gender roles. The mother was very butch and coached football and baseball, and the father was very femme, and taught girls cooking and sewing?
What if their complimentariness was opposite of traditional gender roles. The mother was very butch and coached football and baseball, and the father was very femme, and taught girls cooking and sewing?
10.24.2011 | 10:46am
Brian English says:
"Any law based solely on religion falls afoul of the First Amendment; on this count the Supreme Court has been consistent. The only exception to that scrutiny that I can recall is the use of "In God we trust" and the like---ceremonial bits that can hardly be argued as an infringement of someone's rights."
(1) How do you define "based solely on religion?"
(2) Not passing a law recognizing gay marriage is not the same thing as having a law that makes it a crime for two men or two women to live together in a sexual relationship. That is why the gay marriage movement's attempt to compare this situation to the one in Loving v. Virginia is so absurd.
"Civil unions would be perfectly acceptable, if that were the legal instrument used by all couples (opposite- and same-sex alike) and "marriage" as a term were stripped of legal force. Separate is not equal."
Stripped of legal force, or social force? Judge Walker in the Proposition 8 case said civil unions were not good enough because civil unions did not have the same social status as marriage. Do you agree with him?
(1) How do you define "based solely on religion?"
(2) Not passing a law recognizing gay marriage is not the same thing as having a law that makes it a crime for two men or two women to live together in a sexual relationship. That is why the gay marriage movement's attempt to compare this situation to the one in Loving v. Virginia is so absurd.
"Civil unions would be perfectly acceptable, if that were the legal instrument used by all couples (opposite- and same-sex alike) and "marriage" as a term were stripped of legal force. Separate is not equal."
Stripped of legal force, or social force? Judge Walker in the Proposition 8 case said civil unions were not good enough because civil unions did not have the same social status as marriage. Do you agree with him?
10.24.2011 | 12:31pm
Mchael PS says:
In France last year 91% of civil unions (PACS) were between opposite-sex couples
10.24.2011 | 12:44pm
David Nickol says:
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D.,
You say, "The state has a responsibility to protect children from the present, harmful social experiment of deliberately depriving them of the well documented need of children for the complimentary parenting of a father and a mother."
Of course, 40% of children born to heterosexual women are born out of wedlock, and if we look just at black women, the number is 72%. I am sure people will tell me that just because we have the catastrophe of out-of-wedlock births is no reason to permit same-sex couples to raise children. But, honestly, where are the priorities of you folks who are constantly concerned about the "social experiment" of same-sex marriage when it comes to out-of-wedlock births and divorce?
Blacks make up 12.6% of the American population. Gay people make up a few percent at most, and I would be amazed if the number of gay people who marry and raise children ever rises to 1% of the population. Marriage and the family are in absolute shambles among blacks, it's getting worse, and you people are concerned about the "social experiment" of a relative handful of gay people raising children? And of course we don't need same-sex marriage in order for gay couples to raise children, so opposition to SSM is rather ineffectual.
It gets a lot of attention, but same-sex couples parenting is a minor phenomenon in the United States. Single-parenting, on the other hand, is on its way to becoming the norm, and it's on the increase in many other countries in the West as well.
While all you people are concerned about protecting the definition of marriage, marriage itself is being abandoned. It's really difficult for me to believe a lot of the people who claim to be so concerned about marriage aren't really just expressing their negative gut reactions to homosexuality. Marriage has been heading for disaster for decades, and same-sex marriage has, in my opinion, nothing at all to do with it.
You say, "The state has a responsibility to protect children from the present, harmful social experiment of deliberately depriving them of the well documented need of children for the complimentary parenting of a father and a mother."
Of course, 40% of children born to heterosexual women are born out of wedlock, and if we look just at black women, the number is 72%. I am sure people will tell me that just because we have the catastrophe of out-of-wedlock births is no reason to permit same-sex couples to raise children. But, honestly, where are the priorities of you folks who are constantly concerned about the "social experiment" of same-sex marriage when it comes to out-of-wedlock births and divorce?
Blacks make up 12.6% of the American population. Gay people make up a few percent at most, and I would be amazed if the number of gay people who marry and raise children ever rises to 1% of the population. Marriage and the family are in absolute shambles among blacks, it's getting worse, and you people are concerned about the "social experiment" of a relative handful of gay people raising children? And of course we don't need same-sex marriage in order for gay couples to raise children, so opposition to SSM is rather ineffectual.
It gets a lot of attention, but same-sex couples parenting is a minor phenomenon in the United States. Single-parenting, on the other hand, is on its way to becoming the norm, and it's on the increase in many other countries in the West as well.
While all you people are concerned about protecting the definition of marriage, marriage itself is being abandoned. It's really difficult for me to believe a lot of the people who claim to be so concerned about marriage aren't really just expressing their negative gut reactions to homosexuality. Marriage has been heading for disaster for decades, and same-sex marriage has, in my opinion, nothing at all to do with it.
10.24.2011 | 1:32pm
Brian English says:
"Marriage has been heading for disaster for decades, and same-sex marriage has, in my opinion, nothing at all to do with it."
Nickol is right about this. Conservatives have made a major mistake in focusing their opposition to gay marriage on it representing a redefinition of marriage.
The emphasis should be on opposing the real goal of gay rights activists -- redefining the concept of bigotry so that any opposition to the gay rights agenda automatically qualifies someone as a Klansman.
Once they accomplish that, they can use the Bob Jones University case to go after the religious entities' tax exemptions, and use anti-discrimination laws to go after the religious entities themselves.
Nickol is right about this. Conservatives have made a major mistake in focusing their opposition to gay marriage on it representing a redefinition of marriage.
The emphasis should be on opposing the real goal of gay rights activists -- redefining the concept of bigotry so that any opposition to the gay rights agenda automatically qualifies someone as a Klansman.
Once they accomplish that, they can use the Bob Jones University case to go after the religious entities' tax exemptions, and use anti-discrimination laws to go after the religious entities themselves.
10.24.2011 | 1:34pm
Elastico says:
Felix wrote, "Actually, homosexual behavior has been observed in a number of animal species. You may want to read the much-decorated book, _And Tango Makes Three_."
So what? Homosexuality is still an unnatural inclination for a species' reproduction and survival.
So what? Homosexuality is still an unnatural inclination for a species' reproduction and survival.
10.24.2011 | 1:51pm
Felix says:
Michael PS,
Has Messr. Lévy-Soussan's testimony been used to argue in favor of denying adoption to socially marginal groups (e.g. Gypsys), or to couples of a race different from the child (which would not be conducive to a "fictional filiation [that] can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable")?
How do you square his testimony with the fact that France allows single-parent adoption? (See the Wikipedia article "Adoption in France")
I would additionally point out that there is a big difference between what is (or, more likely, is argued to be) optimal, and what is permissible. It may be optimal that a child is adopted by wealthy parents, as they would then have more resources to dedicate to its care and well-being. But that is hardly a case for denying adoption to parents of more modest means.
Nancy D.,
Are you asking the moderator(s) to more carefully vet your posts?
patricksarsfield,
Whether or not you agree that a female who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery becomes a male, the legal system surely does---and as the discussion is limited to civil marriage, that is all that matters. A same-sex couple can indeed, in some cases, produce children.
Rick Fitzgibbons,
First of all, if you have to cite a study dating from World War II to make a point, you have a *very* fragile case.
Secondly... is your argument that only female same-sex marriages should be allowed?
Jonathan Weintraub,
I would have no problem with that sort of "Mr. Mom" arrangement, thought I'm sure Dr. Fitzgibbons et al. will argue that a very confused and disturbed child would result.
Still, there would not necessarily be an implication that the wife is the superior of the two, nor the husband the inferior. But that implication, sadly, would no doubt be heaped on by this couple's associates and the messages of mainstream society.
Brian English,
"Based solely on religion" means that the law has no rationale without religion. That's the difference between banning/regulating pork because it can be unsafe to eat if improperly handled/cooked, and because the LORD has declared it to be an unclean animal. There has to be a case for it that can stand on its own, without the need to cite religious authorities or dogma.
Discrimination is discrimination, whether by intent, neglect, or omission. Look at the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I agree with Judge Walker's reasoning, but only to the extent that the difference of social status reflects the difference in the eyes of the law. If all couples received civil unions, and the term "marriage" were only applied informally to some of them---there would still be differences in social status, but that would then become a project of education and assimilation. The law would handle both opposite- and same-sex couples exactly the same, so by definition the work there would be done.
David Nickol,
Thank you for reminding me, and others, that prohibiting same-sex marriage is not the same as prohibiting same-sex parenting. The latter has never seriously been on the table in recent times (and Florida's adoption law that prohibited same-sex couples from adopting, the only one in the nation for a long time, was recently struck down). It's easy to forget sometimes!
Brian English,
Have you seen the opinion surveys of young people on same-sex marriage, and LGBT folks in general? Good luck to the conservatives---they're going to need it.
Elastico,
It has been theorized that non-reproducing individuals/couples can aid a species' survival by raising children produced by other individuals/couples that cannot do the task themselves.
In other words... you may want to learn a bit about zoology before you use it to make an argument.
Has Messr. Lévy-Soussan's testimony been used to argue in favor of denying adoption to socially marginal groups (e.g. Gypsys), or to couples of a race different from the child (which would not be conducive to a "fictional filiation [that] can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable")?
How do you square his testimony with the fact that France allows single-parent adoption? (See the Wikipedia article "Adoption in France")
I would additionally point out that there is a big difference between what is (or, more likely, is argued to be) optimal, and what is permissible. It may be optimal that a child is adopted by wealthy parents, as they would then have more resources to dedicate to its care and well-being. But that is hardly a case for denying adoption to parents of more modest means.
Nancy D.,
Are you asking the moderator(s) to more carefully vet your posts?
patricksarsfield,
Whether or not you agree that a female who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery becomes a male, the legal system surely does---and as the discussion is limited to civil marriage, that is all that matters. A same-sex couple can indeed, in some cases, produce children.
Rick Fitzgibbons,
First of all, if you have to cite a study dating from World War II to make a point, you have a *very* fragile case.
Secondly... is your argument that only female same-sex marriages should be allowed?
Jonathan Weintraub,
I would have no problem with that sort of "Mr. Mom" arrangement, thought I'm sure Dr. Fitzgibbons et al. will argue that a very confused and disturbed child would result.
Still, there would not necessarily be an implication that the wife is the superior of the two, nor the husband the inferior. But that implication, sadly, would no doubt be heaped on by this couple's associates and the messages of mainstream society.
Brian English,
"Based solely on religion" means that the law has no rationale without religion. That's the difference between banning/regulating pork because it can be unsafe to eat if improperly handled/cooked, and because the LORD has declared it to be an unclean animal. There has to be a case for it that can stand on its own, without the need to cite religious authorities or dogma.
Discrimination is discrimination, whether by intent, neglect, or omission. Look at the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I agree with Judge Walker's reasoning, but only to the extent that the difference of social status reflects the difference in the eyes of the law. If all couples received civil unions, and the term "marriage" were only applied informally to some of them---there would still be differences in social status, but that would then become a project of education and assimilation. The law would handle both opposite- and same-sex couples exactly the same, so by definition the work there would be done.
David Nickol,
Thank you for reminding me, and others, that prohibiting same-sex marriage is not the same as prohibiting same-sex parenting. The latter has never seriously been on the table in recent times (and Florida's adoption law that prohibited same-sex couples from adopting, the only one in the nation for a long time, was recently struck down). It's easy to forget sometimes!
Brian English,
Have you seen the opinion surveys of young people on same-sex marriage, and LGBT folks in general? Good luck to the conservatives---they're going to need it.
Elastico,
It has been theorized that non-reproducing individuals/couples can aid a species' survival by raising children produced by other individuals/couples that cannot do the task themselves.
In other words... you may want to learn a bit about zoology before you use it to make an argument.
10.24.2011 | 2:52pm
patricksarsfield says:
Felix writes:
"Whether or not you agree that a female who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery becomes a male, the legal system surely does---and as the discussion is limited to civil marriage, that is all that matters. A same-sex couple can indeed, in some cases, produce children. "
This can only be called wishful thinking. Whatever one calls the recipient of the semen, the deposit has to be made into a uterus that is in perfect working order. That is to say, the recipient of the male genetic material must have the primary genitalia of a woman. That is a heterosexual coupling, whatever the parties' orientations and no matter the wishes of the proponent of such unions.
"Whether or not you agree that a female who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery becomes a male, the legal system surely does---and as the discussion is limited to civil marriage, that is all that matters. A same-sex couple can indeed, in some cases, produce children. "
This can only be called wishful thinking. Whatever one calls the recipient of the semen, the deposit has to be made into a uterus that is in perfect working order. That is to say, the recipient of the male genetic material must have the primary genitalia of a woman. That is a heterosexual coupling, whatever the parties' orientations and no matter the wishes of the proponent of such unions.
10.24.2011 | 2:54pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Brian English,
Thank you for the comment:
"The emphasis should be on opposing the real goal of gay rights activists -- redefining the concept of bigotry so that any opposition to the gay rights agenda automatically qualifies someone as a Klansman."
In actuality, GLBT have not need or desire to "redefine the concept of bigotry". As you point out above, it is a matter of conscience or natural law. People mindful of a God that speaks to them will know.
Thank you for the comment:
"The emphasis should be on opposing the real goal of gay rights activists -- redefining the concept of bigotry so that any opposition to the gay rights agenda automatically qualifies someone as a Klansman."
In actuality, GLBT have not need or desire to "redefine the concept of bigotry". As you point out above, it is a matter of conscience or natural law. People mindful of a God that speaks to them will know.
10.24.2011 | 3:22pm
Brian English says:
"Discrimination is discrimination, whether by intent, neglect, or omission. Look at the Americans with Disabilities Act."
What does that have to do with this situation?
"I agree with Judge Walker's reasoning, but only to the extent that the difference of social status reflects the difference in the eyes of the law."
Well, since Judge Walker's reasoning was based on there being no actual difference under the law, I guess you don't agree with Judge Walker.
"If all couples received civil unions, and the term "marriage" were only applied informally to some of them---"
So civil unions are okay as long as the legal concept of marriage is invalidated?
"Have you seen the opinion surveys of young people on same-sex marriage, and LGBT folks in general? Good luck to the conservatives---they're going to need it."
I have a strong suspicion that all of these 25-year olds who are fine with gay marriage, etc., are not going to be so fine with it 15-20 years from now when their five-year olds start coming home from kindergarten and telling them about their teacher having a picture of his "husband" on his desk. This crowing about surveys of young people fails to take into account that views change over the course of a life as life circumstances change.
What does that have to do with this situation?
"I agree with Judge Walker's reasoning, but only to the extent that the difference of social status reflects the difference in the eyes of the law."
Well, since Judge Walker's reasoning was based on there being no actual difference under the law, I guess you don't agree with Judge Walker.
"If all couples received civil unions, and the term "marriage" were only applied informally to some of them---"
So civil unions are okay as long as the legal concept of marriage is invalidated?
"Have you seen the opinion surveys of young people on same-sex marriage, and LGBT folks in general? Good luck to the conservatives---they're going to need it."
I have a strong suspicion that all of these 25-year olds who are fine with gay marriage, etc., are not going to be so fine with it 15-20 years from now when their five-year olds start coming home from kindergarten and telling them about their teacher having a picture of his "husband" on his desk. This crowing about surveys of young people fails to take into account that views change over the course of a life as life circumstances change.
10.24.2011 | 3:25pm
Brian English says:
"In actuality, GLBT have not need or desire to "redefine the concept of bigotry".
I disagree completely. The gay rights movement is always trying to present itself as the heir to the Civil Rights Movement.
I disagree completely. The gay rights movement is always trying to present itself as the heir to the Civil Rights Movement.
10.24.2011 | 4:00pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Brian English,
That isn't true. The histories of the GLBT human rights movement and the civil rights movement in the United states are distinct histories. The similarity lies in the ideology of opponents who found biblical justification for legalized discrimination.
That isn't true. The histories of the GLBT human rights movement and the civil rights movement in the United states are distinct histories. The similarity lies in the ideology of opponents who found biblical justification for legalized discrimination.
10.24.2011 | 4:58pm
Felix says:
patricksarsfield,
This discussion is nominally about "same-sex marriage" and not "same-genital marriage." You would be fine with marriage between a (male-born) male and a FtM transgender male? Because in an increasing number of jurisdictions, that would be a bona fide same-sex marriage as far as the law is concerned.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Indeed, mainstream Anglicans, Unitarian Universalists, and a handful of other faiths have plenty to say on conscience, God, and same-sex marriage. I have a feel that choir will only grow with time.
Brian English,
My apologies (vis-a-vis the ADA); I misread your point. However, /Loving v. Virginia/ was not about the legality of interracial sexual relations, but specifically of interracial marriage. (The case you may be thinking about is the much more recent /Lawrence v. Texas/.)
Civil unions are okay as long as that's what all couples get, opposite- and same-sex marriage alike. I'm not keen on seeing "marriage" as a legal term invalidated, but if you're dead set on not having it bestowed on same-sex couples, then that is the cost. Either everyone gets it, or no one does.
I believe you may be thinking of the old chestnut, "A young man who isn't a liberal has no heart; an old man who isn't a conservative has no brain." What is rarely added, however, is that the views of the young vs. old man are unchanged. Just that the rest of society has moved on.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Opponents' use of biblical justification for discrimination is an element of the GLBT rights movement, but I wouldn't say it's a defining characteristic, or the biggest parallel with the Civil Rights movement. There's certainly been plenty of room for stigmatization based on secular digust and stereotypes alone.
This discussion is nominally about "same-sex marriage" and not "same-genital marriage." You would be fine with marriage between a (male-born) male and a FtM transgender male? Because in an increasing number of jurisdictions, that would be a bona fide same-sex marriage as far as the law is concerned.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Indeed, mainstream Anglicans, Unitarian Universalists, and a handful of other faiths have plenty to say on conscience, God, and same-sex marriage. I have a feel that choir will only grow with time.
Brian English,
My apologies (vis-a-vis the ADA); I misread your point. However, /Loving v. Virginia/ was not about the legality of interracial sexual relations, but specifically of interracial marriage. (The case you may be thinking about is the much more recent /Lawrence v. Texas/.)
Civil unions are okay as long as that's what all couples get, opposite- and same-sex marriage alike. I'm not keen on seeing "marriage" as a legal term invalidated, but if you're dead set on not having it bestowed on same-sex couples, then that is the cost. Either everyone gets it, or no one does.
I believe you may be thinking of the old chestnut, "A young man who isn't a liberal has no heart; an old man who isn't a conservative has no brain." What is rarely added, however, is that the views of the young vs. old man are unchanged. Just that the rest of society has moved on.
Jonathan Weintraub,
Opponents' use of biblical justification for discrimination is an element of the GLBT rights movement, but I wouldn't say it's a defining characteristic, or the biggest parallel with the Civil Rights movement. There's certainly been plenty of room for stigmatization based on secular digust and stereotypes alone.
10.24.2011 | 5:19pm
Elastico says:
Felix wrote, "It has been theorized .........."
Theorized? In other words....it is not known for sure. Non-producing animals may help young survive as you describe. But let me theorize: homosexual animals are a genetic aberration.
Theorized? In other words....it is not known for sure. Non-producing animals may help young survive as you describe. But let me theorize: homosexual animals are a genetic aberration.
10.24.2011 | 5:43pm
Brian English says:
"The histories of the GLBT human rights movement and the civil rights movement in the United states are distinct histories."
I agree, but the leadership of the gay rights movement does not.
I agree, but the leadership of the gay rights movement does not.
10.24.2011 | 5:59pm
Brian English says:
"However, /Loving v. Virginia/ was not about the legality of interracial sexual relations, but specifically of interracial marriage."
The police who broke into the Lovings' home in the middle of the night were hoping to catch them having sexual relations, which was against the law. They were disappointed, but in an effort to prevent future visits from the police, Mrs. Loving produced a DC marriage license. That got the Lovings arrested because inter-racial marriage was also against the law. They were convicted and given five-year sentences, which were suspended, conditioned on them never returning to Virginia together.
My point is, it is preposterous to compare that situation to that of gay couples, who are free to live together, and can even claim they "married" even though the state doesn't recognize it as a marriage.
"Either everyone gets it, or no one does."
So you admit all the nonsense about just wanting to have the same legal rights is a fraud? How are you harmed if marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples, but gay couples have all the same legal rights?
"What is rarely added, however, is that the views of the young vs. old man are unchanged. Just that the rest of society has moved on."
That doesn't even make any sense.
The police who broke into the Lovings' home in the middle of the night were hoping to catch them having sexual relations, which was against the law. They were disappointed, but in an effort to prevent future visits from the police, Mrs. Loving produced a DC marriage license. That got the Lovings arrested because inter-racial marriage was also against the law. They were convicted and given five-year sentences, which were suspended, conditioned on them never returning to Virginia together.
My point is, it is preposterous to compare that situation to that of gay couples, who are free to live together, and can even claim they "married" even though the state doesn't recognize it as a marriage.
"Either everyone gets it, or no one does."
So you admit all the nonsense about just wanting to have the same legal rights is a fraud? How are you harmed if marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples, but gay couples have all the same legal rights?
"What is rarely added, however, is that the views of the young vs. old man are unchanged. Just that the rest of society has moved on."
That doesn't even make any sense.
10.24.2011 | 7:03pm
Felix says:
Elastico,
This is why you are not a zoologist---or, for that matter, a geneticist.
Brian English,
Fair enough---anti-miscegenation statutes at the time often criminalized interracial sexual relations as well as marriage. But not only does the case figure more prominently in history for the latter cause, criminalization of same-sex sexual relations remained an issue till as late as 2003, with /Lawrence v. Texas/. If the comparison is preposterous, it is not due to the substantial parallels between the two cases.
Marriage versus civil unions in the legal code do not represent the same legal rlghts. Remember the Supreme Court case that established the principle that "separate is not equal?" Even if the two could be made equal (which, in practice, is a fantasy now as it was in 1954), harm results from the very drawing of the distinction itself.
And why does that not make sense? Does it not seem conceivable that the liberal views of 1950 could be the conservative views of 2000? Sure, people shift and adjust their beliefs as time goes on, but do you think that most social conservatives from today would be considered anything but libertines a century ago?
Society's views move on, inexorably. That's one of the ramifications of human mortality. That's why it's not enough to say that something is wrong because I/you/God says so---there has to be something real behind it, because every new generation that comes along is going to skeptically examine the hell out of it.
This is why you are not a zoologist---or, for that matter, a geneticist.
Brian English,
Fair enough---anti-miscegenation statutes at the time often criminalized interracial sexual relations as well as marriage. But not only does the case figure more prominently in history for the latter cause, criminalization of same-sex sexual relations remained an issue till as late as 2003, with /Lawrence v. Texas/. If the comparison is preposterous, it is not due to the substantial parallels between the two cases.
Marriage versus civil unions in the legal code do not represent the same legal rlghts. Remember the Supreme Court case that established the principle that "separate is not equal?" Even if the two could be made equal (which, in practice, is a fantasy now as it was in 1954), harm results from the very drawing of the distinction itself.
And why does that not make sense? Does it not seem conceivable that the liberal views of 1950 could be the conservative views of 2000? Sure, people shift and adjust their beliefs as time goes on, but do you think that most social conservatives from today would be considered anything but libertines a century ago?
Society's views move on, inexorably. That's one of the ramifications of human mortality. That's why it's not enough to say that something is wrong because I/you/God says so---there has to be something real behind it, because every new generation that comes along is going to skeptically examine the hell out of it.
10.24.2011 | 7:30pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Felix,
Yes, you are correct. The same could be said about racism. All racism wasn't based on the story of Ham, but Christian missionaries did go to Africa along with the slave traders. The Bible and the bullet always seem to go hand in hand. My point was that there is a a historical intersection of religion, and religious justification for racism and there is a present day intersection of heterosexism and Biblical justifications for anti-gay political activism. The intersection is much stronger in the anti-gay movement. See Brian Raum's piece and the writings found on the Alliance Defense Fund web site.
Brian English,
The GLBT movement today is not homogeneous as this post points out. We don't need a coordinated movement or leadership. All we need to do is to say "I'm gay and I'm just as good as you". As I've said before, and I'm sure will say again, it doesn't require many words.
Yes, you are correct. The same could be said about racism. All racism wasn't based on the story of Ham, but Christian missionaries did go to Africa along with the slave traders. The Bible and the bullet always seem to go hand in hand. My point was that there is a a historical intersection of religion, and religious justification for racism and there is a present day intersection of heterosexism and Biblical justifications for anti-gay political activism. The intersection is much stronger in the anti-gay movement. See Brian Raum's piece and the writings found on the Alliance Defense Fund web site.
Brian English,
The GLBT movement today is not homogeneous as this post points out. We don't need a coordinated movement or leadership. All we need to do is to say "I'm gay and I'm just as good as you". As I've said before, and I'm sure will say again, it doesn't require many words.
10.24.2011 | 7:57pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
The belief that children do not need a mother or a father is the prevailing narcissistic delusion in the culture fostered by activist judges, legislators, the media, professional organizations, educators and the White House. Are there readers who wish to make a well-reasoned case against this view?
10.24.2011 | 8:44pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English,
You say: "So you admit all the nonsense about just wanting to have the same legal rights is a fraud?"
Undoubtedly there are different people with different motives for wanting same-sex marriage. But there are *some* gay people who are not into the politics of the gay-rights movement who simply WANT (OR WANTED) TO GET MARRIED. Some gay people have bought into the idea most of us have been raised with (and see on television and in movies, and read about in books) that two people who love each other and want to live happily ever after get married. Other gay people are appalled that their brothers and sisters would fall for the "heterosexual lifestyle." There are also parents of gay people out there who are thrilled at the idea their gay sons or daughters can get married, even if it is to someone of the same sex. And there are definitely parents out there who are thrilled that their gay sons and daughters can get marred who have sons and daughters who don't want to get married, even if they have been in long-term relationships.
So any generalization you (or others) make in a discussion like this is probably going to be true of some people and not true of others. So when people say things like, "It's not really about marriage . . . it's about destroying the Catholic Church" (or whatever), my reaction is to think of people who got married who don't fit the description at all and say to myself, "That's not true, and it's an insult to T. and T., who were together all their adult lives, who were not political, who aren't anti-religious, and who got married in their 60s, don't take drugs, aren't promiscuous, and so on, and so on." When I read these kids of discussions, what happens in my mind is seeing a lot of sincere, decent people being trashed. Suppose they are misguided and God thinks homosexual relationships are an "abomination." Nevertheless, they are sincere and decent by their own lights, and it is offensive to see them being trashed.
You say: "So you admit all the nonsense about just wanting to have the same legal rights is a fraud?"
Undoubtedly there are different people with different motives for wanting same-sex marriage. But there are *some* gay people who are not into the politics of the gay-rights movement who simply WANT (OR WANTED) TO GET MARRIED. Some gay people have bought into the idea most of us have been raised with (and see on television and in movies, and read about in books) that two people who love each other and want to live happily ever after get married. Other gay people are appalled that their brothers and sisters would fall for the "heterosexual lifestyle." There are also parents of gay people out there who are thrilled at the idea their gay sons or daughters can get married, even if it is to someone of the same sex. And there are definitely parents out there who are thrilled that their gay sons and daughters can get marred who have sons and daughters who don't want to get married, even if they have been in long-term relationships.
So any generalization you (or others) make in a discussion like this is probably going to be true of some people and not true of others. So when people say things like, "It's not really about marriage . . . it's about destroying the Catholic Church" (or whatever), my reaction is to think of people who got married who don't fit the description at all and say to myself, "That's not true, and it's an insult to T. and T., who were together all their adult lives, who were not political, who aren't anti-religious, and who got married in their 60s, don't take drugs, aren't promiscuous, and so on, and so on." When I read these kids of discussions, what happens in my mind is seeing a lot of sincere, decent people being trashed. Suppose they are misguided and God thinks homosexual relationships are an "abomination." Nevertheless, they are sincere and decent by their own lights, and it is offensive to see them being trashed.
10.24.2011 | 9:22pm
Jason says:
@Brian: You said "So you admit all the nonsense about just wanting to have the same legal rights is a fraud? How are you harmed if marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples, but gay couples have all the same legal rights?"
I don't think that's the point at all. The point is that the secular government has absolutely no right to give rights to one group but not another, or to call it something different to appease any given religious group. I will not argue the religious validity of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, that's an individual belief (I do not believe God imbued certain people with an inherent sin for being the people they were created to be, nor do I believe that the Bible ever even discusses the type of same-sex relationships we have in modern society). However, it doesn't and should not matter. This is not a theocracy. This is a secular state and thus we ARE wanting the same rights. But creating the same rights and calling them something else is just deliberate way of undermining the group receiving the rights. "Separate but equal" didn't work the last time we tried it. Oft-quoted though it may be, the axiom stands: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay guy."
I don't think that's the point at all. The point is that the secular government has absolutely no right to give rights to one group but not another, or to call it something different to appease any given religious group. I will not argue the religious validity of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, that's an individual belief (I do not believe God imbued certain people with an inherent sin for being the people they were created to be, nor do I believe that the Bible ever even discusses the type of same-sex relationships we have in modern society). However, it doesn't and should not matter. This is not a theocracy. This is a secular state and thus we ARE wanting the same rights. But creating the same rights and calling them something else is just deliberate way of undermining the group receiving the rights. "Separate but equal" didn't work the last time we tried it. Oft-quoted though it may be, the axiom stands: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay guy."
10.24.2011 | 10:39pm
Felix says:
Jonathan Weintraub,
Certainly biblical belief played a role in racism, but I don't think that characterized much of the opposition to the civil-rights movement. I've never been able to find much in the way of (racist) religious entities of the time that attempted to defend their practice of racial discrimination on First-Amendment grounds, for example. There were some White-power churches, but I've only ever understood them to be bit players.
Rick Fitzgibbons,
On a topic like child development and family dynamics, a forum like this isn't going to get much farther than pop psychology. All I can say is, there is no reputable mainstream organization with recognized expertise on the subject that agrees with your position. You can cite a study, I can cite a study---these organizations have, no doubt, vetted all the material that is out there and come to their well-considered conclusions. You can argue that their position is ideologically-based and not scientifically sound, but they are viewed as reputable for a reason.
Certainly biblical belief played a role in racism, but I don't think that characterized much of the opposition to the civil-rights movement. I've never been able to find much in the way of (racist) religious entities of the time that attempted to defend their practice of racial discrimination on First-Amendment grounds, for example. There were some White-power churches, but I've only ever understood them to be bit players.
Rick Fitzgibbons,
On a topic like child development and family dynamics, a forum like this isn't going to get much farther than pop psychology. All I can say is, there is no reputable mainstream organization with recognized expertise on the subject that agrees with your position. You can cite a study, I can cite a study---these organizations have, no doubt, vetted all the material that is out there and come to their well-considered conclusions. You can argue that their position is ideologically-based and not scientifically sound, but they are viewed as reputable for a reason.
10.24.2011 | 10:43pm
edmond says:
"What must the LORD think of all this?!?!?!?!?"
I think this was the most enlightened statement from all the arguments I read in this issue. Pro-same sex advocates will find it easier to argue if they consider marriage as more of an institution created by law rather than a sacrament ordained by God. So there is this conscious effort to keep the discussion away from "religious beliefs" because it would become lopsided against homosexuality. It is so easy to twist arguments when there are no parameters to look out for ergo the sheepish efforts to fill the discussions with philosphical "botox". The endgame really which is constantly avoided for the sake of sounding theologically impartial or politically correct is the question of whether God is happy with same sex marriage or not. If He is not then it is a choce beteween God'd happiness and one's self indulgence. Go figure!
I think this was the most enlightened statement from all the arguments I read in this issue. Pro-same sex advocates will find it easier to argue if they consider marriage as more of an institution created by law rather than a sacrament ordained by God. So there is this conscious effort to keep the discussion away from "religious beliefs" because it would become lopsided against homosexuality. It is so easy to twist arguments when there are no parameters to look out for ergo the sheepish efforts to fill the discussions with philosphical "botox". The endgame really which is constantly avoided for the sake of sounding theologically impartial or politically correct is the question of whether God is happy with same sex marriage or not. If He is not then it is a choce beteween God'd happiness and one's self indulgence. Go figure!
10.24.2011 | 11:16pm
Gil Costello says:
The curious thing about obsession is that most of the energy invested in it is to defy the logic that would unhinge it.
Before the Gay Movement started, being gay signified the pursuit of sex in a subculture that provided the most opportunity for that engagement, which, in maximizing those opportunities, a lifestyle developed.
But something happened with the politicization of the gay lifestyle which goes far deeper than granting equal rights under the law. It was the establishment of a sexual identity (made visible in gay pride parades). This wasn’t something created by gays but by sex liberationists, the vast majority not gay. The guiding philosophy resulting in a social-political movement was that the ultimate meaning in life emerges in sexual engagement—the more available unrepressed sexual expression, the more meaningful one’s life would become. This grew out of a distorted Freudian notion of sexual repression being the singular cause of every form of neurotic enslavement; and it would follow that life more abundantly would be a life of unrestrained sexual engagement.
This philosophy took on a popular expression: “If it feels good, do it!” Meaning sexual licentiousness was the guiding light of true freedom. And of course those in gay culture jumped on board with this notion because they were, without knowing it, perennial vanguards of this freedom movement (look at one of the more popular contemporary vanguards of the gay liberation movement, Andrew Sullivan, and how he insists that gays were always ahead of heterosexuals on the sexual liberation front, and still are, clearly seeing the nuclear family construct as a repressive form of sexually relating). Even revolutionary movements like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground embraced sexual liberation as key to their fight for freedom (Huey Newton, high on drugs, would throw a teen he was engaged with sexually out his apartment window to her death, and being a revolutionary hero to sex liberationists and the liberal establishment of that time, he would never do time in prison for the murder).
But there is a major flaw in the philosophy of sexual liberation, the belief that one’s identity in substance is sexual. Sure, one can adopt a sexual identity, but it is a surface identity with no ground, and why for the last 50 years gay scientists have fought hard to find a gay gene.
Because sex liberationists have failed to convince us that a sexual identity is one of substance, they have resorted to trying to expropriate what they believe is a heterosexual identity and dress it up in drag, blinded to the fact that there is no heterosexual identity of substance either, regardless that heterosexual engagement fits like a glove in nature.
The Gay Movement is betting everything on sexual identity to the point that it has become an obsession. But the problem with obsession (as Hitchcock masterfully reveals in his film “Vertigo”) is that it always plays out in the realm of illogic, and why on this thread so much of the argument for gay marriage is founded in illogic. As a spectator viewing Hitchcock’s “Vertigo”, one dismisses the dynamic of suspension of disbelief entirely (otherwise the film wouldn’t work) and we follow not any plot, but the obsession of Jimmy Stewart’s character in the first half of the film, and Kim Novak’s character in the second half of the film. Logic simply has no place in obsession, and watching sex liberationists trying to rationalize their illogic would be entertaining if we simply watched the obsession, but we as a culture are now embracing the illogic as logic and losing sight of the obsession, the reality of what is actually taking place.
In embracing the illogic of sex liberation, we have come to embrace the holocaust of abortion-on-demand, the infecting of untold numbers of children with STDs and other afflictions, including AIDS, while destroying in sex education classes any semblance of a logical approach to a truly meaningful relationship, continuing with the insistence that we move them into embracing the sex liberationist philosophy of sexual licentiousness as the true meaning of life.
Gay marriage is simply a major component of the destruction of the nuclear family construct, the singular threat to the sex liberation movement, for if children become convinced that a truly meaningful life will not be discovered in licentious sex, but in a committed relationship with a complementary other with the purpose of raising children, the core of the sex liberation movement will be thoroughly undone. And this is why President Obama, with the leadership of Kevin Jennings, focuses on indoctrinating children as early as possible into embracing the principles of sex liberation, and almost singularly focusing on embracing the gay lifestyle because gays have always practiced the principles of sex liberation, even when they don’t know it.
The illogic of sexual identity as the key to a meaningful life is obvious all around us, beginning with the destruction of the lives of our youth. But it is instructive, now that sex liberationists have made gay marriage its final blow against the nuclear family (its worst enemy) to look at one social manifestation of the flaw/lie of sexual identity having substance: There are two groups of Catholic priests, one with a heterosexual orientation and one with a homosexual one. The former do not possess a sexual identity, and thus find it much easier to embrace a celibate life, for they do not fixate on sex as the core of meaning in their lives; whereas the latter do obsess on the lie of sexual identity as having substance, even ultimate substance, which traps them in an unbearable torture program of having to deny who they perceive themselves to be, persons who must engage in sex to have meaning.
Before the Gay Movement started, being gay signified the pursuit of sex in a subculture that provided the most opportunity for that engagement, which, in maximizing those opportunities, a lifestyle developed.
But something happened with the politicization of the gay lifestyle which goes far deeper than granting equal rights under the law. It was the establishment of a sexual identity (made visible in gay pride parades). This wasn’t something created by gays but by sex liberationists, the vast majority not gay. The guiding philosophy resulting in a social-political movement was that the ultimate meaning in life emerges in sexual engagement—the more available unrepressed sexual expression, the more meaningful one’s life would become. This grew out of a distorted Freudian notion of sexual repression being the singular cause of every form of neurotic enslavement; and it would follow that life more abundantly would be a life of unrestrained sexual engagement.
This philosophy took on a popular expression: “If it feels good, do it!” Meaning sexual licentiousness was the guiding light of true freedom. And of course those in gay culture jumped on board with this notion because they were, without knowing it, perennial vanguards of this freedom movement (look at one of the more popular contemporary vanguards of the gay liberation movement, Andrew Sullivan, and how he insists that gays were always ahead of heterosexuals on the sexual liberation front, and still are, clearly seeing the nuclear family construct as a repressive form of sexually relating). Even revolutionary movements like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground embraced sexual liberation as key to their fight for freedom (Huey Newton, high on drugs, would throw a teen he was engaged with sexually out his apartment window to her death, and being a revolutionary hero to sex liberationists and the liberal establishment of that time, he would never do time in prison for the murder).
But there is a major flaw in the philosophy of sexual liberation, the belief that one’s identity in substance is sexual. Sure, one can adopt a sexual identity, but it is a surface identity with no ground, and why for the last 50 years gay scientists have fought hard to find a gay gene.
Because sex liberationists have failed to convince us that a sexual identity is one of substance, they have resorted to trying to expropriate what they believe is a heterosexual identity and dress it up in drag, blinded to the fact that there is no heterosexual identity of substance either, regardless that heterosexual engagement fits like a glove in nature.
The Gay Movement is betting everything on sexual identity to the point that it has become an obsession. But the problem with obsession (as Hitchcock masterfully reveals in his film “Vertigo”) is that it always plays out in the realm of illogic, and why on this thread so much of the argument for gay marriage is founded in illogic. As a spectator viewing Hitchcock’s “Vertigo”, one dismisses the dynamic of suspension of disbelief entirely (otherwise the film wouldn’t work) and we follow not any plot, but the obsession of Jimmy Stewart’s character in the first half of the film, and Kim Novak’s character in the second half of the film. Logic simply has no place in obsession, and watching sex liberationists trying to rationalize their illogic would be entertaining if we simply watched the obsession, but we as a culture are now embracing the illogic as logic and losing sight of the obsession, the reality of what is actually taking place.
In embracing the illogic of sex liberation, we have come to embrace the holocaust of abortion-on-demand, the infecting of untold numbers of children with STDs and other afflictions, including AIDS, while destroying in sex education classes any semblance of a logical approach to a truly meaningful relationship, continuing with the insistence that we move them into embracing the sex liberationist philosophy of sexual licentiousness as the true meaning of life.
Gay marriage is simply a major component of the destruction of the nuclear family construct, the singular threat to the sex liberation movement, for if children become convinced that a truly meaningful life will not be discovered in licentious sex, but in a committed relationship with a complementary other with the purpose of raising children, the core of the sex liberation movement will be thoroughly undone. And this is why President Obama, with the leadership of Kevin Jennings, focuses on indoctrinating children as early as possible into embracing the principles of sex liberation, and almost singularly focusing on embracing the gay lifestyle because gays have always practiced the principles of sex liberation, even when they don’t know it.
The illogic of sexual identity as the key to a meaningful life is obvious all around us, beginning with the destruction of the lives of our youth. But it is instructive, now that sex liberationists have made gay marriage its final blow against the nuclear family (its worst enemy) to look at one social manifestation of the flaw/lie of sexual identity having substance: There are two groups of Catholic priests, one with a heterosexual orientation and one with a homosexual one. The former do not possess a sexual identity, and thus find it much easier to embrace a celibate life, for they do not fixate on sex as the core of meaning in their lives; whereas the latter do obsess on the lie of sexual identity as having substance, even ultimate substance, which traps them in an unbearable torture program of having to deny who they perceive themselves to be, persons who must engage in sex to have meaning.
10.25.2011 | 12:38am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Felix,
I don't think that opposition to civil rights was in line with mainline Christianity. The civil-rights movement was in part, a Christians movement. But systemic racism was rooted in institutionalized slavery that could not have existed in a predominately Christian America without a scriptural justification. There are still vestiges of pre-civil war "Christian racism". For example, in Virginia under Governor McDonnell, the state history textbooks were revised to include a statement that Blacks fought for the Confederacy. This statement raised a controversy, and it was not the Governor's base in the Christian right that found the misstatement inaccurate.
The anti-gay-rights movement on the other hand is 99.9% religious in nature, and its leadership draws power from ignorance, so-called secular organizations like the Institute for American values, and the "ick" factor, but I doubt if anti-gay politics would have much traction if religious organizations decided to put there energy elsewhere. So in that regard your are right. Anti-gay and anti-civil rights movements are very different with regard to religion.
Edmond,
God is perfectly happy with same-sex marriage.
Gil Costello,
I'd posit that the combination of sexual repression and a protective Church hierarchy allowed the Catholic priest scandal to spiral out of control. Sexual orientation wasn't an important factor. The hierarchy protected priests who abused girls and boys, youth and adults, and none of that has anything to do with whether same-sex couples who want to marry each other should be afforded that option under civil law.
I don't think that opposition to civil rights was in line with mainline Christianity. The civil-rights movement was in part, a Christians movement. But systemic racism was rooted in institutionalized slavery that could not have existed in a predominately Christian America without a scriptural justification. There are still vestiges of pre-civil war "Christian racism". For example, in Virginia under Governor McDonnell, the state history textbooks were revised to include a statement that Blacks fought for the Confederacy. This statement raised a controversy, and it was not the Governor's base in the Christian right that found the misstatement inaccurate.
The anti-gay-rights movement on the other hand is 99.9% religious in nature, and its leadership draws power from ignorance, so-called secular organizations like the Institute for American values, and the "ick" factor, but I doubt if anti-gay politics would have much traction if religious organizations decided to put there energy elsewhere. So in that regard your are right. Anti-gay and anti-civil rights movements are very different with regard to religion.
Edmond,
God is perfectly happy with same-sex marriage.
Gil Costello,
I'd posit that the combination of sexual repression and a protective Church hierarchy allowed the Catholic priest scandal to spiral out of control. Sexual orientation wasn't an important factor. The hierarchy protected priests who abused girls and boys, youth and adults, and none of that has anything to do with whether same-sex couples who want to marry each other should be afforded that option under civil law.
10.25.2011 | 12:53am
patricksarsfield says:
Felix writes:
"This discussion is nominally about "same-sex marriage" and not "same-genital marriage.""
Felix's obfuscation of the plain facts of life has descended into meaninglessness. Specifically, the term "same genital marriage" means nothing. If a genital couples with itself, that is hardly "marriage."
"This discussion is nominally about "same-sex marriage" and not "same-genital marriage.""
Felix's obfuscation of the plain facts of life has descended into meaninglessness. Specifically, the term "same genital marriage" means nothing. If a genital couples with itself, that is hardly "marriage."
10.25.2011 | 3:14am
Felix says:
edmond,
You ask what the LORD thinks of all this... that would depend on which one you're talking about. Anglican, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Protestant, Unitarian...?
Gil Costello,
How do the ramifications of gay/lesbian sexual identity differ substantively from heterosexual sexual identity? When you express your romantic interest in a person of the opposite sex, you express that naughty, naughty sexual identity of yours---except that people don't give you guff about it being "abnormal," so it doesn't become such a big deal. Maybe if people didn't lose their heads every time GLBT sexual identity comes up, it wouldn't become such a big deal either!
Oh, and LOL on equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Do you switch that up with bestiality when you're talking with your friends from the country?
Jonathan Weintraub,
Slavery and its justifications are a whole 'nuther can of worms. There was certainly *plenty* to work with in the Bible on behalf of that!
patricksarsfield,
Funnily enough, genital plus opposite-sex genital isn't "marriage," either. We have a different word for that---several, in fact.
You ask what the LORD thinks of all this... that would depend on which one you're talking about. Anglican, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Protestant, Unitarian...?
Gil Costello,
How do the ramifications of gay/lesbian sexual identity differ substantively from heterosexual sexual identity? When you express your romantic interest in a person of the opposite sex, you express that naughty, naughty sexual identity of yours---except that people don't give you guff about it being "abnormal," so it doesn't become such a big deal. Maybe if people didn't lose their heads every time GLBT sexual identity comes up, it wouldn't become such a big deal either!
Oh, and LOL on equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Do you switch that up with bestiality when you're talking with your friends from the country?
Jonathan Weintraub,
Slavery and its justifications are a whole 'nuther can of worms. There was certainly *plenty* to work with in the Bible on behalf of that!
patricksarsfield,
Funnily enough, genital plus opposite-sex genital isn't "marriage," either. We have a different word for that---several, in fact.
10.25.2011 | 3:57am
Michael PS says:
David Nichol
It is no longer the case that born out of wedlock equates lack of paternal recognition
In a study published in January 1999, the INED estimated that more than a third of children born outside marriage in 1994 had been acknowledged before they were born, jointly in almost all cases. Some 82% of children were recognized by their father within one month (compared with only a third of children born outside marriage in 1965 and 1970), and 92% were ultimately recognized. Some 94% of babies recognized by their father within a month were living at that time with both their parents, whereas the proportion was only about 80% in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1999, 89% of children born outside marriage were recognized before the age of one month and the INED estimates that 95% of children born outside marriage in 2002 will receive paternal recognition. About 40,000 children older than one month born in 1999 lacked paternal recognition, but at age 1, the number had dropped to no more than 30,000. Lastly, only 15,000 children born in 2002 are expected to remain without paternal recognition, about as many as in the 1960s, when fewer than 6% of births took place outside marriage.
Thus, being born outside marriage now only rarely affects acknowledgment or filiation of children
It is no longer the case that born out of wedlock equates lack of paternal recognition
In a study published in January 1999, the INED estimated that more than a third of children born outside marriage in 1994 had been acknowledged before they were born, jointly in almost all cases. Some 82% of children were recognized by their father within one month (compared with only a third of children born outside marriage in 1965 and 1970), and 92% were ultimately recognized. Some 94% of babies recognized by their father within a month were living at that time with both their parents, whereas the proportion was only about 80% in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1999, 89% of children born outside marriage were recognized before the age of one month and the INED estimates that 95% of children born outside marriage in 2002 will receive paternal recognition. About 40,000 children older than one month born in 1999 lacked paternal recognition, but at age 1, the number had dropped to no more than 30,000. Lastly, only 15,000 children born in 2002 are expected to remain without paternal recognition, about as many as in the 1960s, when fewer than 6% of births took place outside marriage.
Thus, being born outside marriage now only rarely affects acknowledgment or filiation of children
10.25.2011 | 12:39pm
Brian English says:
"criminalization of same-sex sexual relations remained an issue till as late as 2003, with /Lawrence v. Texas/."
It was only an issue to gay rights activists. The law was never enforced, and the Lawrence case was a test case manufactured to get a ruling that could some day be used to support gay marriage (as Justice Scalia warned). What a surprise, that is exactly what happened.
"Marriage versus civil unions in the legal code do not represent the same legal rlghts."
They most certainly can. You are confusing legal rights with self esteem.
"Even if the two could be made equal (which, in practice, is a fantasy now as it was in 1954), harm results from the very drawing of the distinction itself."
How are gay couples harmed? We are not talking about black children being prevented from going to school with white children just because of their race, as was the case in Brown v. Board of Education.
"Society's views move on, inexorably."
Not always in the right direction. Even a casual glance at history would tell you that.
It was only an issue to gay rights activists. The law was never enforced, and the Lawrence case was a test case manufactured to get a ruling that could some day be used to support gay marriage (as Justice Scalia warned). What a surprise, that is exactly what happened.
"Marriage versus civil unions in the legal code do not represent the same legal rlghts."
They most certainly can. You are confusing legal rights with self esteem.
"Even if the two could be made equal (which, in practice, is a fantasy now as it was in 1954), harm results from the very drawing of the distinction itself."
How are gay couples harmed? We are not talking about black children being prevented from going to school with white children just because of their race, as was the case in Brown v. Board of Education.
"Society's views move on, inexorably."
Not always in the right direction. Even a casual glance at history would tell you that.
10.25.2011 | 12:42pm
Brian English says:
"All we need to do is to say "I'm gay and I'm just as good as you".
So just say it. Why do you need the government to pass laws to support your belief?
So just say it. Why do you need the government to pass laws to support your belief?
10.25.2011 | 1:06pm
Brian English says:
"This is a secular state and thus we ARE wanting the same rights."
France is the most secular of states, and it has rejected gay marriage.
"But creating the same rights and calling them something else is just deliberate way of undermining the group receiving the rights."
So we are back to self esteem. Why do you care what the state calls your relationship as long as you get the same benefits?
""Separate but equal" didn't work the last time we tried it."
Gays in America are not in the same situation that blacks were after the Civil War.
"Oft-quoted though it may be, the axiom stands: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay guy."
Yes, you hear that a lot, but what is it supposed to mean? It really doesn't address the issue. Why doesn't, "If you don't believe in polygamy, don't marry more women," also carry the day? Or what about, "If you don't believe in incest, don't marry your sister."
France is the most secular of states, and it has rejected gay marriage.
"But creating the same rights and calling them something else is just deliberate way of undermining the group receiving the rights."
So we are back to self esteem. Why do you care what the state calls your relationship as long as you get the same benefits?
""Separate but equal" didn't work the last time we tried it."
Gays in America are not in the same situation that blacks were after the Civil War.
"Oft-quoted though it may be, the axiom stands: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay guy."
Yes, you hear that a lot, but what is it supposed to mean? It really doesn't address the issue. Why doesn't, "If you don't believe in polygamy, don't marry more women," also carry the day? Or what about, "If you don't believe in incest, don't marry your sister."
10.25.2011 | 1:17pm
Michael PS says:
In Belgium and the Netherlands, which allow same-sex marriage, the presumption of paternity is restricted to those between opposite-sex couples, In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how a marriage between a same-sex couple differs from a civil union, leading some jurists to claim that these countries have conceded the name of marriage to same-sex couples, but not the substance
But if the Senate is right and the presumption of paternity is "the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value," it is difficult to see how marriage can be, without absurdity, extended to same-sex couples.
But if the Senate is right and the presumption of paternity is "the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value," it is difficult to see how marriage can be, without absurdity, extended to same-sex couples.
10.25.2011 | 1:58pm
Felix says:
Brian English,
The law was most certainly enforced in the case of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that the incident leading to their arrest was "manufactured?"
As for marriage versus civil unions, you ask, "How are gay couples harmed?" The key holding of /Brown v. Board of Education/ was that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. From the ruling:
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group."
Do you suppose this impetus to grant civil unions rather than marriage to same-sex couples comes from a desire to denote them as inferior? Because that desire has been on naked display in a number of comments on this very page.
Society may not always move in the direction that is best for everyone, I'll agree. But whether it goes for the better or for the worse, you can count on the old guard to say it's going to hell in a handbasket. This has been the case since the days of ancient Greece, and likely even further back.
Laws are needed to support equality of sexual orientation, because GLBT individuals can't very well get along like the rest of us if they can be evicted from their homes or fired from their jobs simply for being who they are. Marriage equality follows in the same vein.
Gays in America are not in the same situation that Blacks were after the Civil War (the latter had it much worse), but if you believe that is enough to make /Brown/ and the equal-protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable then you have a much lower opinion of our Constitution than I do.
Polygamy remains illegal because there is little evidence to suggest that it can be practiced in a beneficial manner, and a lot of evidence to the contrary (Warren Jeffs, anyone?). Incest is illegal because, presuming that statutory rape isn't at issue, any resulting child will be a victim of inbreeding.
I can turn your question right back at you: How is everyone else harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?
The law was most certainly enforced in the case of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that the incident leading to their arrest was "manufactured?"
As for marriage versus civil unions, you ask, "How are gay couples harmed?" The key holding of /Brown v. Board of Education/ was that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. From the ruling:
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group."
Do you suppose this impetus to grant civil unions rather than marriage to same-sex couples comes from a desire to denote them as inferior? Because that desire has been on naked display in a number of comments on this very page.
Society may not always move in the direction that is best for everyone, I'll agree. But whether it goes for the better or for the worse, you can count on the old guard to say it's going to hell in a handbasket. This has been the case since the days of ancient Greece, and likely even further back.
Laws are needed to support equality of sexual orientation, because GLBT individuals can't very well get along like the rest of us if they can be evicted from their homes or fired from their jobs simply for being who they are. Marriage equality follows in the same vein.
Gays in America are not in the same situation that Blacks were after the Civil War (the latter had it much worse), but if you believe that is enough to make /Brown/ and the equal-protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable then you have a much lower opinion of our Constitution than I do.
Polygamy remains illegal because there is little evidence to suggest that it can be practiced in a beneficial manner, and a lot of evidence to the contrary (Warren Jeffs, anyone?). Incest is illegal because, presuming that statutory rape isn't at issue, any resulting child will be a victim of inbreeding.
I can turn your question right back at you: How is everyone else harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?
10.25.2011 | 3:50pm
Brian English says:
"The law was most certainly enforced in the case of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that the incident leading to their arrest was "manufactured?"
Yes, read the facts of the case. In addition, how many other times had the law been enforced in the previous 10 years? Are you aware of any circumstances where the police busted into a gay couple's home to see if they were having sex, as the police did in the Loving case?
"As for marriage versus civil unions, you ask, "How are gay couples harmed?" The key holding of /Brown v. Board of Education/ was that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional."
Because of the context of slavery, where blacks, simply because they were black, were considered inferior human beings. There is no equivalence between that and gay couples not having their relationships recognized by the state as marriages.
"Do you suppose this impetus to grant civil unions rather than marriage to same-sex couples comes from a desire to denote them as inferior?"
It comes from a desire to denote them as not being marriages because until about 20 years ago only men and women got married, and there is no rational basis to extend that term to same-sex couples. If unmarried couples are "inferior", why do so many heterosexual couples willingly choose that inferior status?
"But whether it goes for the better or for the worse, you can count on the old guard to say it's going to hell in a handbasket."
And there are numerous examples from history where it turned out the old guard was right.
"Laws are needed to support equality of sexual orientation, because GLBT individuals can't very well get along like the rest of us if they can be evicted from their homes or fired from their jobs simply for being who they are. Marriage equality follows in the same vein."
Marriage equality is nothing like the first two situations. You are not actually being deprived of anything. Gay couples are actually still free to say they are "married" even though the state doesn't recognize it.
"but if you believe that is enough to make /Brown/ and the equal-protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable then you have a much lower opinion of our Constitution than I do."
Actually, I have a great deal of respect for the Constitution, and do not like to see it distorted for political purposes. Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment compels states to pass laws to make people feel good about themselves. The Amendment was passed to prevent Black Americans from being deprived of their fundamental rights as citizens.
"Polygamy remains illegal because there is little evidence to suggest that it can be practiced in a beneficial manner, and a lot of evidence to the contrary (Warren Jeffs, anyone?). Incest is illegal because, presuming that statutory rape isn't at issue, any resulting child will be a victim of inbreeding."
And there are people who would disagree with you on those points, and at least they can point back to historical periods where those types of marriage were recognized. Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?
"I can turn your question right back at you: How is everyone else harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?"
(1) You are avoiding my question. You are the one seeking to change the traditional definition of marriage. You tell me what the harm is that has to be addressed through that fundamental change.
(2) Because that "right" will be used as a basis for attacking those who do not approve of homosexual activity, specifically the Church. Your constant comparisons between gay marriage and the Civil Rights Movement make it crystal clear that this is just not about gay couples being able to get marriage licenses.
Yes, read the facts of the case. In addition, how many other times had the law been enforced in the previous 10 years? Are you aware of any circumstances where the police busted into a gay couple's home to see if they were having sex, as the police did in the Loving case?
"As for marriage versus civil unions, you ask, "How are gay couples harmed?" The key holding of /Brown v. Board of Education/ was that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional."
Because of the context of slavery, where blacks, simply because they were black, were considered inferior human beings. There is no equivalence between that and gay couples not having their relationships recognized by the state as marriages.
"Do you suppose this impetus to grant civil unions rather than marriage to same-sex couples comes from a desire to denote them as inferior?"
It comes from a desire to denote them as not being marriages because until about 20 years ago only men and women got married, and there is no rational basis to extend that term to same-sex couples. If unmarried couples are "inferior", why do so many heterosexual couples willingly choose that inferior status?
"But whether it goes for the better or for the worse, you can count on the old guard to say it's going to hell in a handbasket."
And there are numerous examples from history where it turned out the old guard was right.
"Laws are needed to support equality of sexual orientation, because GLBT individuals can't very well get along like the rest of us if they can be evicted from their homes or fired from their jobs simply for being who they are. Marriage equality follows in the same vein."
Marriage equality is nothing like the first two situations. You are not actually being deprived of anything. Gay couples are actually still free to say they are "married" even though the state doesn't recognize it.
"but if you believe that is enough to make /Brown/ and the equal-protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable then you have a much lower opinion of our Constitution than I do."
Actually, I have a great deal of respect for the Constitution, and do not like to see it distorted for political purposes. Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment compels states to pass laws to make people feel good about themselves. The Amendment was passed to prevent Black Americans from being deprived of their fundamental rights as citizens.
"Polygamy remains illegal because there is little evidence to suggest that it can be practiced in a beneficial manner, and a lot of evidence to the contrary (Warren Jeffs, anyone?). Incest is illegal because, presuming that statutory rape isn't at issue, any resulting child will be a victim of inbreeding."
And there are people who would disagree with you on those points, and at least they can point back to historical periods where those types of marriage were recognized. Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?
"I can turn your question right back at you: How is everyone else harmed if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?"
(1) You are avoiding my question. You are the one seeking to change the traditional definition of marriage. You tell me what the harm is that has to be addressed through that fundamental change.
(2) Because that "right" will be used as a basis for attacking those who do not approve of homosexual activity, specifically the Church. Your constant comparisons between gay marriage and the Civil Rights Movement make it crystal clear that this is just not about gay couples being able to get marriage licenses.
10.25.2011 | 5:36pm
Felix says:
Brian English,
I did read the facts of the case (/Lawrence v. Texas/). The arrest for "homosexual conduct" was incidental, resulting from a false tip-off relating to gun charges, but it was not staged. Judges have little patience for sham cases.
Infrequent enforcement of a bad law doesn't mean that there is not a valid case against it, or that it does not exercise a chilling effect simply by being on the law books. It's easy for you to say it's not such a big deal when you're not the one in the crosshairs.
As for Blacks being considered inferior, and same-sex couples being denied marriage... the former had critics insisting that guarantees of equal protection did not apply to them, too. What exactly are your criteria for who does and does not deserve Fourteenth Amendment protections?
So your primary reason not to extend marriage to same-sex couples is because marriage was not extended to same-sex couples in the past. Truly a conservative argument. (There most certainly is a rational basis for doing so---same as the rational basis for granting marriage to opposite-sex couples, including infertile ones, in the first place.)
Sorry if you consider yourself a member of the old guard, but right or wrong, you have not made a case persuasive to young people. What is a curmudgeon's ire worth when young men and women have close friends and associates who are not heterosexual, and may be openly non-heterosexual themselves?
Opposite-sex couples are free to pretend that they are "married" too, but for some reason, many of them seem to prefer the real thing. I wonder why.
The Fourteenth Amendment is not specifically about making people feel good, but someone of racist inclination could certainly argue that /Brown/ was all about that. After all, the Court found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to Black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research by the psychologists Kenneth Clark and June Shagaloff...
People are free to disagree with me (and the mainstream) on polygamy and incest. Their opinions are less valid for the same reason that the opinions of Intelligent-Design advocates are less valid: they don't have evidence on their side. How these things play out in the real world makes a difference.
The harm that I am seeking to redress by extending marriage to same-sex couples is the denigration of their relationships and their character by lack of equality under the law.
As for the Church, it will continue to enjoy the First Amendment protections it always has had in this country. It will never be required to condone non-heterosexuality, or officiate a same-sex marriage. I don't doubt they'll fare increasingly worse in the court of public opinion, but then there's nothing the law can or should do about that.
I did read the facts of the case (/Lawrence v. Texas/). The arrest for "homosexual conduct" was incidental, resulting from a false tip-off relating to gun charges, but it was not staged. Judges have little patience for sham cases.
Infrequent enforcement of a bad law doesn't mean that there is not a valid case against it, or that it does not exercise a chilling effect simply by being on the law books. It's easy for you to say it's not such a big deal when you're not the one in the crosshairs.
As for Blacks being considered inferior, and same-sex couples being denied marriage... the former had critics insisting that guarantees of equal protection did not apply to them, too. What exactly are your criteria for who does and does not deserve Fourteenth Amendment protections?
So your primary reason not to extend marriage to same-sex couples is because marriage was not extended to same-sex couples in the past. Truly a conservative argument. (There most certainly is a rational basis for doing so---same as the rational basis for granting marriage to opposite-sex couples, including infertile ones, in the first place.)
Sorry if you consider yourself a member of the old guard, but right or wrong, you have not made a case persuasive to young people. What is a curmudgeon's ire worth when young men and women have close friends and associates who are not heterosexual, and may be openly non-heterosexual themselves?
Opposite-sex couples are free to pretend that they are "married" too, but for some reason, many of them seem to prefer the real thing. I wonder why.
The Fourteenth Amendment is not specifically about making people feel good, but someone of racist inclination could certainly argue that /Brown/ was all about that. After all, the Court found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to Black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research by the psychologists Kenneth Clark and June Shagaloff...
People are free to disagree with me (and the mainstream) on polygamy and incest. Their opinions are less valid for the same reason that the opinions of Intelligent-Design advocates are less valid: they don't have evidence on their side. How these things play out in the real world makes a difference.
The harm that I am seeking to redress by extending marriage to same-sex couples is the denigration of their relationships and their character by lack of equality under the law.
As for the Church, it will continue to enjoy the First Amendment protections it always has had in this country. It will never be required to condone non-heterosexuality, or officiate a same-sex marriage. I don't doubt they'll fare increasingly worse in the court of public opinion, but then there's nothing the law can or should do about that.
10.25.2011 | 7:13pm
Brian English says:
"The arrest for "homosexual conduct" was incidental, resulting from a false tip-off relating to gun charges, but it was not staged. Judges have little patience for sham cases."
Sure it wasn't.
"the former had critics insisting that guarantees of equal protection did not apply to them, too."
No, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to guarantee they were afforded equal rights.
"What exactly are your criteria for who does and does not deserve Fourteenth Amendment protections?"
Exactly what it states in the Amendment itself. You are confusing the person protected with the rights that are protected.
"(There most certainly is a rational basis for doing so---same as the rational basis for granting marriage to opposite-sex couples, including infertile ones, in the first place.)"
Would you like to share it with the rest of us?
"Sorry if you consider yourself a member of the old guard, but right or wrong, you have not made a case persuasive to young people."
Tough talk from the supporter of a position that has been voted into law in only two jurisdictions in the country, and was specifically rejected in California (!!) when put to a vote.
"Opposite-sex couples are free to pretend that they are "married" too, but for some reason, many of them seem to prefer the real thing. I wonder why."
It is not a question of pretending to be married. You claim that gay couples suffer some kind of (still unidentified) devastating harm by not being able to get officially married, yet many heterosexual couples willingly bring that "harm" on themselves. I wonder why?
"The Fourteenth Amendment is not specifically about making people feel good, but someone of racist inclination could certainly argue that /Brown/ was all about that. "
It is about protecting Constitutional rights.
"The harm that I am seeking to redress by extending marriage to same-sex couples is the denigration of their relationships and their character by lack of equality under the law."
How does the state not recognizing gay marriage denigrate relationships and character?
"People are free to disagree with me (and the mainstream) on polygamy and incest."
Aren't you denigrating their relationships and character?
"As for the Church, it will continue to enjoy the First Amendment protections it always has had in this country."
Apparently you missed Ms. Feldblum's quote in the main article, as well as the government's position argued before the Supreme Court last week in the case involving the Lutheran Church.
Sure it wasn't.
"the former had critics insisting that guarantees of equal protection did not apply to them, too."
No, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed to guarantee they were afforded equal rights.
"What exactly are your criteria for who does and does not deserve Fourteenth Amendment protections?"
Exactly what it states in the Amendment itself. You are confusing the person protected with the rights that are protected.
"(There most certainly is a rational basis for doing so---same as the rational basis for granting marriage to opposite-sex couples, including infertile ones, in the first place.)"
Would you like to share it with the rest of us?
"Sorry if you consider yourself a member of the old guard, but right or wrong, you have not made a case persuasive to young people."
Tough talk from the supporter of a position that has been voted into law in only two jurisdictions in the country, and was specifically rejected in California (!!) when put to a vote.
"Opposite-sex couples are free to pretend that they are "married" too, but for some reason, many of them seem to prefer the real thing. I wonder why."
It is not a question of pretending to be married. You claim that gay couples suffer some kind of (still unidentified) devastating harm by not being able to get officially married, yet many heterosexual couples willingly bring that "harm" on themselves. I wonder why?
"The Fourteenth Amendment is not specifically about making people feel good, but someone of racist inclination could certainly argue that /Brown/ was all about that. "
It is about protecting Constitutional rights.
"The harm that I am seeking to redress by extending marriage to same-sex couples is the denigration of their relationships and their character by lack of equality under the law."
How does the state not recognizing gay marriage denigrate relationships and character?
"People are free to disagree with me (and the mainstream) on polygamy and incest."
Aren't you denigrating their relationships and character?
"As for the Church, it will continue to enjoy the First Amendment protections it always has had in this country."
Apparently you missed Ms. Feldblum's quote in the main article, as well as the government's position argued before the Supreme Court last week in the case involving the Lutheran Church.
10.25.2011 | 11:01pm
Gil Costello says:
Jonathan Weintraub,
You write, "I'd posit that the combination of sexual repression and a protective Church hierarchy allowed the Catholic priest scandal to spiral out of control. Sexual orientation wasn't an important factor. The hierarchy protected priests who abused girls and boys, youth and adults, and none of that has anything to do with whether same-sex couples who want to marry each other should be afforded that option under civil law."
Logic tells a different story. The vast majority of sexual abuse cases involved gay men engaging teen boys in sex. In other words, the abusers were not pedophiles (who can only sexually engage children who have not reached puberty), and the numbers don't lie: not girls, but boys were the dominant targets, and the abusers were gay men. Yes, the bishops did protect them, and they ultimately must take responsibility (they thought they were being charitable in allowing outspoken gay men into the priesthood). But my point that you seek to invalidate: gay men were the primary abusers, and we should ask why. And I am convinced I gave the right answer: gay men adopt a sexual identity, i.e., engaging in sex is what generates meaning for them. This is not true of most heterosexual men, and is not true of men with a same-sex attraction who do not adopt a gay identity. The vanguards of the Gay Movement (including Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Jennings) would have all men and children who experience same sex attraction adopt a sexual identity (and Obama gave Jennings the power to inflict this identity on children throughout our country’s schools), even though the data clearly indicates that most boys who experience same-sex attraction grow out of it, and most adults who experience it dismiss it, and in the instance that they, adults and children, do embrace a sexual identity in a same-sex attraction, they become gay, and that’s why gay men should not be accepted into the priesthood: they have chosen a sexual identity that has no substance, and with no substance they will anxiously and determinedly develop an obsession, and as an obsession, they will seek sex wherever it is available.
And what this has to do with gay marriage: Once gay marriage is legitimized, then gay men can freely, in law, adopt children, and those children will be subjected to the principles of sex liberation, which is a movement that culminates in death, as is evident by the abortion license and the spread of STDs and AIDS.
One of the leaders and major spokesperson of the Gay Movement in America, Dan Savage, who is a commentator on sexuality on most major television media outlets, made it clear that he would not suppress the evidence of his sadomasochistic delight in adopting a child, that he would keep all his sadomasochistic paraphernalia in his living room when the adoption agency came to visit. He also stated matter-of-factly that the sole reason he was adopting a child was to get a book contract. In other words, he had no desire to adopt a child, but a publisher promised him a book deal if he did. Dan Savage made this clear to the bureaucratic adopting agency, and they still approved the adoption. We know if that had been a man and woman trying to adopt a child, insisting that they had no interest in adopting a child, but wanted a lucrative book contract, that they would have been denied.
My point: obsession cannot exist in the realm of logic. And that adopting agencies and deluded judges and legislators want to succumb to the illogic of obsession, well…maybe they just want to be entertained. But my suggestion is that they watch Hitchcock’s masterpiece, “”Vertigo”, and not inflict damage on untold millions of children.
You write, "I'd posit that the combination of sexual repression and a protective Church hierarchy allowed the Catholic priest scandal to spiral out of control. Sexual orientation wasn't an important factor. The hierarchy protected priests who abused girls and boys, youth and adults, and none of that has anything to do with whether same-sex couples who want to marry each other should be afforded that option under civil law."
Logic tells a different story. The vast majority of sexual abuse cases involved gay men engaging teen boys in sex. In other words, the abusers were not pedophiles (who can only sexually engage children who have not reached puberty), and the numbers don't lie: not girls, but boys were the dominant targets, and the abusers were gay men. Yes, the bishops did protect them, and they ultimately must take responsibility (they thought they were being charitable in allowing outspoken gay men into the priesthood). But my point that you seek to invalidate: gay men were the primary abusers, and we should ask why. And I am convinced I gave the right answer: gay men adopt a sexual identity, i.e., engaging in sex is what generates meaning for them. This is not true of most heterosexual men, and is not true of men with a same-sex attraction who do not adopt a gay identity. The vanguards of the Gay Movement (including Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Jennings) would have all men and children who experience same sex attraction adopt a sexual identity (and Obama gave Jennings the power to inflict this identity on children throughout our country’s schools), even though the data clearly indicates that most boys who experience same-sex attraction grow out of it, and most adults who experience it dismiss it, and in the instance that they, adults and children, do embrace a sexual identity in a same-sex attraction, they become gay, and that’s why gay men should not be accepted into the priesthood: they have chosen a sexual identity that has no substance, and with no substance they will anxiously and determinedly develop an obsession, and as an obsession, they will seek sex wherever it is available.
And what this has to do with gay marriage: Once gay marriage is legitimized, then gay men can freely, in law, adopt children, and those children will be subjected to the principles of sex liberation, which is a movement that culminates in death, as is evident by the abortion license and the spread of STDs and AIDS.
One of the leaders and major spokesperson of the Gay Movement in America, Dan Savage, who is a commentator on sexuality on most major television media outlets, made it clear that he would not suppress the evidence of his sadomasochistic delight in adopting a child, that he would keep all his sadomasochistic paraphernalia in his living room when the adoption agency came to visit. He also stated matter-of-factly that the sole reason he was adopting a child was to get a book contract. In other words, he had no desire to adopt a child, but a publisher promised him a book deal if he did. Dan Savage made this clear to the bureaucratic adopting agency, and they still approved the adoption. We know if that had been a man and woman trying to adopt a child, insisting that they had no interest in adopting a child, but wanted a lucrative book contract, that they would have been denied.
My point: obsession cannot exist in the realm of logic. And that adopting agencies and deluded judges and legislators want to succumb to the illogic of obsession, well…maybe they just want to be entertained. But my suggestion is that they watch Hitchcock’s masterpiece, “”Vertigo”, and not inflict damage on untold millions of children.
10.25.2011 | 11:18pm
Gil Costello says:
Felix,
You ask,
"How do the ramifications of gay/lesbian sexual identity differ substantively from heterosexual sexual identity?"
You weren't paying attention, and the reason you weren't paying attention is that you are trapped in the realm of obsession ruled by illogic.
I have been clear from the outset: a heterosexual identity would be just as false as a homosexual identity. Any sexual identity would be false because it would reduce the complex nature of a truly human identity to a particular. Surface identities serve a purpose, and with a sexual identity (surface identity) one seeks to engage in sex. This in no way can encompass the gestalt of a human identity.
You ask,
"How do the ramifications of gay/lesbian sexual identity differ substantively from heterosexual sexual identity?"
You weren't paying attention, and the reason you weren't paying attention is that you are trapped in the realm of obsession ruled by illogic.
I have been clear from the outset: a heterosexual identity would be just as false as a homosexual identity. Any sexual identity would be false because it would reduce the complex nature of a truly human identity to a particular. Surface identities serve a purpose, and with a sexual identity (surface identity) one seeks to engage in sex. This in no way can encompass the gestalt of a human identity.
10.25.2011 | 11:37pm
edmond says:
Jonathan: "God is perfectly happy with same-sex marriage."
You have to do better than that, Jonathan. Prove it. Any scriptural passages up your sleeve?
Felix:"You ask what the LORD thinks of all this... that would depend on which one you're talking about. Anglican, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Protestant, Unitarian...?"
All of the above.
You have to do better than that, Jonathan. Prove it. Any scriptural passages up your sleeve?
Felix:"You ask what the LORD thinks of all this... that would depend on which one you're talking about. Anglican, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Protestant, Unitarian...?"
All of the above.
10.26.2011 | 3:59am
Michael PS says:
Felix asks "If unmarried couples are "inferior", why do so many heterosexual couples willingly choose that inferior status?"
And, if civil unions are inferior, why are so many opposite-sex couples choosing them? After all, they have three options, unregulated cohabitation, civil unions or marriage. In France, over 90% of civil unions are between opposite-sex couples, at a time when marriages have fallen from 394,000 in 1970 to 279,000 in 2002..
And, if civil unions are inferior, why are so many opposite-sex couples choosing them? After all, they have three options, unregulated cohabitation, civil unions or marriage. In France, over 90% of civil unions are between opposite-sex couples, at a time when marriages have fallen from 394,000 in 1970 to 279,000 in 2002..
10.26.2011 | 11:57am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Brian English responds to my declaration of human rights - ""I'm gay and I'm just as good as you"
"So just say it. Why do you need the government to pass laws to support your belief?"
Brian, seriously, do you want an answer? BECAUSE OF YOU!, and First Things, and Brian Raum, and the ADF, and countless other organizations that not only want to prevent me from saying what I just said, but would like to criminalize that speech.
Let me rephrase it.
"I'm married to a man and my family is just as good as any other."
In America, the family is a legal sort of "corporation". It is a financial entity where both spouses share assets and responsibilities and is recognized as a single entity by the state which bestows many privileges and responsibilities. Maybe the question is to you and the other anti-gay activists. What gives you the right to prevent my family from enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as yours? Don't you want a government that keeps its nose out of family business?
As for proof of harm, a study was released yesterday at
http://www.fox8.com/news/sns-rt-us-gays-familiestre79o7mc-20111025,0,2143182.story
Here are the first few paragraphs.
"BOSTON (Reuters) - Children growing up in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families are more likely to live in poverty and may be denied legal ties to one of their parents, a report released on Tuesday showed.
A lack of federal recognition of same-sex marriages means such families face higher tax burdens and unequal access to health insurance and government safety net programs, said the report entitled "All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families."
The report was released online and authored by groups advocating for gay rights including Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress.
"The reality is if you look at today's modern families, they come in all shapes and sizes," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.
"The laws and policies we have in place haven't kept pace with that changing reality," she said.
An estimated two million children are being raised in such households, the report said. They live in 96 percent of U.S. counties in racially and ethnically diverse families, it said.
Their children are as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as their peers raised by heterosexual parents, it said.
But such families are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual households, the report said.
In 31 states, it is very challenging for same-sex parents to establish legal ties for their children to both parents, Chrisler said. Thus a child could be left vulnerable if a parent dies or the relationship dissolves."
Two million children. Have you no compassion? Have you no shame?
"So just say it. Why do you need the government to pass laws to support your belief?"
Brian, seriously, do you want an answer? BECAUSE OF YOU!, and First Things, and Brian Raum, and the ADF, and countless other organizations that not only want to prevent me from saying what I just said, but would like to criminalize that speech.
Let me rephrase it.
"I'm married to a man and my family is just as good as any other."
In America, the family is a legal sort of "corporation". It is a financial entity where both spouses share assets and responsibilities and is recognized as a single entity by the state which bestows many privileges and responsibilities. Maybe the question is to you and the other anti-gay activists. What gives you the right to prevent my family from enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as yours? Don't you want a government that keeps its nose out of family business?
As for proof of harm, a study was released yesterday at
http://www.fox8.com/news/sns-rt-us-gays-familiestre79o7mc-20111025,0,2143182.story
Here are the first few paragraphs.
"BOSTON (Reuters) - Children growing up in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families are more likely to live in poverty and may be denied legal ties to one of their parents, a report released on Tuesday showed.
A lack of federal recognition of same-sex marriages means such families face higher tax burdens and unequal access to health insurance and government safety net programs, said the report entitled "All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families."
The report was released online and authored by groups advocating for gay rights including Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress.
"The reality is if you look at today's modern families, they come in all shapes and sizes," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.
"The laws and policies we have in place haven't kept pace with that changing reality," she said.
An estimated two million children are being raised in such households, the report said. They live in 96 percent of U.S. counties in racially and ethnically diverse families, it said.
Their children are as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as their peers raised by heterosexual parents, it said.
But such families are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual households, the report said.
In 31 states, it is very challenging for same-sex parents to establish legal ties for their children to both parents, Chrisler said. Thus a child could be left vulnerable if a parent dies or the relationship dissolves."
Two million children. Have you no compassion? Have you no shame?
10.26.2011 | 12:08pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Edmond asks,
You have to do better than that, Jonathan. Prove it. Any scriptural passages up your sleeve?
It being my statement that "God is perfectly happy with same-sex marriage."
Since my husband's name is David, I've always been fond of the passage that David's love for Jonathan was more than his love for a woman". I consider that passage to be prooftext. Also, I grew up in a reform Jewish tradition, and my synagogue blesses same-sex unions. I now belong to the UCC and the UCC blesses same-sex unions. You may want to read their rationale for doing so.
I also believe that Jesus' statement about lusting after a woman in the heart is the same as committing adultery to be another prooftext.
Finally, I've thought long and hard about this (28 years of marriage to David). I've listened to your side. I've discussed this with people who have claimed that the existence of my family "harmed" them, and I've prayed about it. I'm satisfied with the answers to those conversations and prayers, and I've accepted God's commission that I spread His Word.
You have to do better than that, Jonathan. Prove it. Any scriptural passages up your sleeve?
It being my statement that "God is perfectly happy with same-sex marriage."
Since my husband's name is David, I've always been fond of the passage that David's love for Jonathan was more than his love for a woman". I consider that passage to be prooftext. Also, I grew up in a reform Jewish tradition, and my synagogue blesses same-sex unions. I now belong to the UCC and the UCC blesses same-sex unions. You may want to read their rationale for doing so.
I also believe that Jesus' statement about lusting after a woman in the heart is the same as committing adultery to be another prooftext.
Finally, I've thought long and hard about this (28 years of marriage to David). I've listened to your side. I've discussed this with people who have claimed that the existence of my family "harmed" them, and I've prayed about it. I'm satisfied with the answers to those conversations and prayers, and I've accepted God's commission that I spread His Word.
10.26.2011 | 12:31pm
Michael PS says:
I must say I find it frankly astonishing that anyone should seek to defend the old laws against "offences against religion," so belatedly struck down in Lawrence v Texas. Almost exactly two hundred and ten years ago, the new Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 - October 6, 1791) abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphčme, la sodomie et la sorcellerie] The true maxim of piety is expressed by the maxim of the great Roman jurists, "Deorum injuia diis cura" - Injuries to the gods are the gods' concern." To hold otherwise is to doubt their knowledge or their power.
My objection to SSM is founded on a series of very simple propositions that I shall set out once again: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
To those who doubt this, I would ask this: why does the law facilitate marriage "in extremis" - death-bed marriages? Why does the law permit, in very limited cases, posthumous marriages? Why can those in prison marry, but they cannot enter a civil union? On my reading of the Code, these are obvious enough; on any other reading, they are unintelligible.
The absurd comparison with inter-racial marriages is exposed by the fact that these require no modification at all of the existing rules governing marriage; same-sex marriage, by contrast, requires modification of what generations of jurists have regarded as the essential purpose of civil marriage, the establishment of the juridical link between father and child.
My objection to SSM is founded on a series of very simple propositions that I shall set out once again: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular [laďque] Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
To those who doubt this, I would ask this: why does the law facilitate marriage "in extremis" - death-bed marriages? Why does the law permit, in very limited cases, posthumous marriages? Why can those in prison marry, but they cannot enter a civil union? On my reading of the Code, these are obvious enough; on any other reading, they are unintelligible.
The absurd comparison with inter-racial marriages is exposed by the fact that these require no modification at all of the existing rules governing marriage; same-sex marriage, by contrast, requires modification of what generations of jurists have regarded as the essential purpose of civil marriage, the establishment of the juridical link between father and child.
10.26.2011 | 1:25pm
Nancy D. says:
Jonathan, your statement regarding your interpretation of the Scripture passage regarding the Love between David and Jonathan is total nonsense. An act of Love cannot be perverted to begin with.
10.26.2011 | 1:38pm
Brian English says:
"Brian, seriously, do you want an answer? BECAUSE OF YOU!, and First Things, and Brian Raum, and the ADF, and countless other organizations that not only want to prevent me from saying what I just said, but would like to criminalize that speech."
Get over yourself. Who is trying to prevent you from speaking or criminalize your speech? Actually, it is your organizations, with your hate speech laws and speech codes at colleges, who are trying to prevent speech and criminalize speech you don't like.
"In America, the family is a legal sort of "corporation". It is a financial entity where both spouses share assets and responsibilities and is recognized as a single entity by the state which bestows many privileges and responsibilities."
Since you regard the family as simply a legal insititution, why do you object to civil unions? The concept of marriage existed long before any of the modern states, so it had nothing to do with benefits provided by the state.
And by the way, what benefits are you deprived of?
"What gives you the right to prevent my family from enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as yours? Don't you want a government that keeps its nose out of family business?"
Again, what rights are you deprived of? Those in favor of gay marriage are long on generalities and emotion and short on specifics and reason.
And how is the government simply not recognizing your relationship as a "marriage" represent the government sticking its nose in your family's business? Frankly, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if governments hadn't started sticking their noses into marriage about 200 years ago.
"As for proof of harm, a study was released yesterday at"
A study by a group promoting gay marriage. I can't wait to get to the end and see what their conclusion is.
"A lack of federal recognition of same-sex marriages means such families face higher tax burdens and unequal access to health insurance and government safety net programs,"
Specifics please. "Higher tax burden" and "unequal access" are weasel phrases.
"Their children are as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as their peers raised by heterosexual parents, it said."
Of course.
"But such families are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual households, the report said."
Why?
"In 31 states, it is very challenging for same-sex parents to establish legal ties for their children to both parents, Chrisler said.
What does "very challenging" mean? And what does she mean by "legal ties?" Weasel words again.
"Thus a child could be left vulnerable if a parent dies or the relationship dissolves."
Gay people can't have wills? And gay people will not support their "children" if the relationship "dissolves?"
"Two million children. Have you no compassion? Have you no shame?"
Where does the report state that two million children are in some type of peril? I thought children of gay couples were just as happy as those in heterosexual families, so what are you carrying on about?
Get over yourself. Who is trying to prevent you from speaking or criminalize your speech? Actually, it is your organizations, with your hate speech laws and speech codes at colleges, who are trying to prevent speech and criminalize speech you don't like.
"In America, the family is a legal sort of "corporation". It is a financial entity where both spouses share assets and responsibilities and is recognized as a single entity by the state which bestows many privileges and responsibilities."
Since you regard the family as simply a legal insititution, why do you object to civil unions? The concept of marriage existed long before any of the modern states, so it had nothing to do with benefits provided by the state.
And by the way, what benefits are you deprived of?
"What gives you the right to prevent my family from enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as yours? Don't you want a government that keeps its nose out of family business?"
Again, what rights are you deprived of? Those in favor of gay marriage are long on generalities and emotion and short on specifics and reason.
And how is the government simply not recognizing your relationship as a "marriage" represent the government sticking its nose in your family's business? Frankly, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if governments hadn't started sticking their noses into marriage about 200 years ago.
"As for proof of harm, a study was released yesterday at"
A study by a group promoting gay marriage. I can't wait to get to the end and see what their conclusion is.
"A lack of federal recognition of same-sex marriages means such families face higher tax burdens and unequal access to health insurance and government safety net programs,"
Specifics please. "Higher tax burden" and "unequal access" are weasel phrases.
"Their children are as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as their peers raised by heterosexual parents, it said."
Of course.
"But such families are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual households, the report said."
Why?
"In 31 states, it is very challenging for same-sex parents to establish legal ties for their children to both parents, Chrisler said.
What does "very challenging" mean? And what does she mean by "legal ties?" Weasel words again.
"Thus a child could be left vulnerable if a parent dies or the relationship dissolves."
Gay people can't have wills? And gay people will not support their "children" if the relationship "dissolves?"
"Two million children. Have you no compassion? Have you no shame?"
Where does the report state that two million children are in some type of peril? I thought children of gay couples were just as happy as those in heterosexual families, so what are you carrying on about?
10.26.2011 | 2:52pm
SteveP says:
Jonathan Weintraub writes: “In America, the family is a legal sort of ‘corporation’. It is a financial entity where both spouses share assets and responsibilities and is recognized as a single entity by the state which bestows many privileges and responsibilities.”
I’d suggest that view is skewed: a corporation mimics a person in a matter of law. However I find your analogy apt as it describes a mimesis of a mimesis.
On a more pragmatic note, are you relaying that the recorder of deeds in your locality refused to issue a jointly named deed? What of the motor vehicle agency – does it not issue vehicular titles with more than one name as the vehicle owner?
I’d suggest that view is skewed: a corporation mimics a person in a matter of law. However I find your analogy apt as it describes a mimesis of a mimesis.
On a more pragmatic note, are you relaying that the recorder of deeds in your locality refused to issue a jointly named deed? What of the motor vehicle agency – does it not issue vehicular titles with more than one name as the vehicle owner?
10.26.2011 | 6:51pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
All,
I am providing you with personal information gained from many years of experience. I know how heterosexual married couples are treated by both public and private administrative entities and how homosexual married couples are treated under exactly the same circumstances. Christians are supposed to be concerned with the most vulnerable members of society, and the most vulnerable families. My family doesn't represent all families. It is one data point. You can consider that data point to be valid, or invalid. You can choose to care about my family or consider my family a threat. All I ask is of you is to ask what Jesus would do and for you to pray for discernment. In turn, I'll pray that you use that discernment to exercise Christian charity.
Your friend in Christ
I am providing you with personal information gained from many years of experience. I know how heterosexual married couples are treated by both public and private administrative entities and how homosexual married couples are treated under exactly the same circumstances. Christians are supposed to be concerned with the most vulnerable members of society, and the most vulnerable families. My family doesn't represent all families. It is one data point. You can consider that data point to be valid, or invalid. You can choose to care about my family or consider my family a threat. All I ask is of you is to ask what Jesus would do and for you to pray for discernment. In turn, I'll pray that you use that discernment to exercise Christian charity.
Your friend in Christ
10.26.2011 | 7:55pm
Nancy D. says:
Any person who refuses to condone the engaging in or condoning of demeaning sexual acts and demeaning sexual relationships because demeaning sexual acts do not respect the inherent dignity of the human person, does so out of Christian Charity.
10.26.2011 | 9:02pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Nancy D.,
Who said anything about sexual acts? Oh, you did. What's the matter with you?
Who said anything about sexual acts? Oh, you did. What's the matter with you?
10.26.2011 | 10:45pm
edmond says:
Jonathan, the parallelism that you choose in relating your own cohabitation to the friendship of David to Joanthan is misplaced. It is also not scriptural basis enough to spring your argument, it is therefore not acceptable not is it enough to validate your side of the discussion. As for your WWJD idea, I would think that Jesus would tell you to go and sin no more. Short of casting out. You talk about spreading the word, how is it you can spread the word and in the same breath act against it?
10.26.2011 | 10:58pm
Felix says:
Brian English,
I don't think continuing this discussion is likely to be productive.
I'm content with having failed to convince you of the rightfulness of same-sex marriage, after witnessing what a forceful advocate you are for civil unions.
After all, about a decade or so ago, same-sex marriage was a bridge too far, and civil unions were the object of debate, favored by gay/lesbian advocates and roundly assailed by conservatives, whose goal was to prevent any sort of formalization of same-sex relationships from being codified into law.
You can see the power of long-term social shift, Mr. English, when it finds embodiment even in you. Oh, you may be a bit behind the curve---but you can be sure there is a crusty old codger out there who sees the line of reasoning you've put forth, and weeps for the future of conservatism.
Gil Costello,
This is why you are not a psychologist.
edmond,
Some of those Lords think same-sex marriage is great; some think it is evil. I don't have the wherewithal to conduct a full survey of the deity population, sadly.
Michael PS,
Perhaps opposite-sex couples would be happy to choose civil unions (in the jurisdictions where they are available) if there weren't other options being denied to them. Some Black people prefer to sit at the back of the bus too, you know. (It's often warmer there.)
And if your objection to same-sex marriage is based on an abstruse point of policy that few outside the legal-academic community are even aware of, then you'll find yourself handily outshone by couples for whom the rights and title of marriage are not academic, but an essential element of living their lives as peers to opposite-sex married couples in our society. Don't fret too much about it, however---the abstruse legal theory will catch up in time.
Nancy D.,
Jonathan's got the Scriptural citations to back him up; you do not. And the words you've written here could most certainly not be confused with those of Christ.
I don't think continuing this discussion is likely to be productive.
I'm content with having failed to convince you of the rightfulness of same-sex marriage, after witnessing what a forceful advocate you are for civil unions.
After all, about a decade or so ago, same-sex marriage was a bridge too far, and civil unions were the object of debate, favored by gay/lesbian advocates and roundly assailed by conservatives, whose goal was to prevent any sort of formalization of same-sex relationships from being codified into law.
You can see the power of long-term social shift, Mr. English, when it finds embodiment even in you. Oh, you may be a bit behind the curve---but you can be sure there is a crusty old codger out there who sees the line of reasoning you've put forth, and weeps for the future of conservatism.
Gil Costello,
This is why you are not a psychologist.
edmond,
Some of those Lords think same-sex marriage is great; some think it is evil. I don't have the wherewithal to conduct a full survey of the deity population, sadly.
Michael PS,
Perhaps opposite-sex couples would be happy to choose civil unions (in the jurisdictions where they are available) if there weren't other options being denied to them. Some Black people prefer to sit at the back of the bus too, you know. (It's often warmer there.)
And if your objection to same-sex marriage is based on an abstruse point of policy that few outside the legal-academic community are even aware of, then you'll find yourself handily outshone by couples for whom the rights and title of marriage are not academic, but an essential element of living their lives as peers to opposite-sex married couples in our society. Don't fret too much about it, however---the abstruse legal theory will catch up in time.
Nancy D.,
Jonathan's got the Scriptural citations to back him up; you do not. And the words you've written here could most certainly not be confused with those of Christ.
10.27.2011 | 4:09am
Michael PS says:
Felix wrote
“if your objection to same-sex marriage is based on an abstruse point of policy that few outside the legal-academic community are even aware of...”
But what we are discussing is not “marriage” in general, but civil, republican marriage, an institution that dates back, precisely, to 3 September, 1791. More than that, we are talking about mandatory civil marriage, for it is a crime for any minister of religion habitually to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple not already legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21] (2)) as an “attack on civil status.”
This suggests that, in the eyes of the legislature, marriage serves a clear public purpose. Given that the legislature has also provided all couples with the option of civil unions, what do you suggest that purpose is?
In my submission, I can furnish a coherent account and you, with great respect, cannot.
“if your objection to same-sex marriage is based on an abstruse point of policy that few outside the legal-academic community are even aware of...”
But what we are discussing is not “marriage” in general, but civil, republican marriage, an institution that dates back, precisely, to 3 September, 1791. More than that, we are talking about mandatory civil marriage, for it is a crime for any minister of religion habitually to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple not already legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21] (2)) as an “attack on civil status.”
This suggests that, in the eyes of the legislature, marriage serves a clear public purpose. Given that the legislature has also provided all couples with the option of civil unions, what do you suggest that purpose is?
In my submission, I can furnish a coherent account and you, with great respect, cannot.
10.27.2011 | 1:55pm
Brian English says:
"I'm content with having failed to convince you of the rightfulness of same-sex marriage, after witnessing what a forceful advocate you are for civil unions."
As a lawyer, I can understand people wanting to formalize their legal responsibilities to one another.
"After all, about a decade or so ago, same-sex marriage was a bridge too far, and civil unions were the object of debate, favored by gay/lesbian advocates and roundly assailed by conservatives, whose goal was to prevent any sort of formalization of same-sex relationships from being codified into law."
You have just identified the problem. People who were willing to compromise and allow gay couples legal benefits in the various states that passed civil union laws ended up getting kicked in the teeth, and the gay rights activists who claimed they were just seeking the same legal benefits as married couples revealed themselves to be disingenuous frauds.
"You can see the power of long-term social shift, Mr. English, when it finds embodiment even in you."
You lost in California, the bluest of blue states, and Maine when gay marriage was voted on by the citizens of those states. You could not even get gay marriage laws through state legislatures in blue states like New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland. You only won in New York when two Republican legislators violated pledges to their constituents and voted in favor of the law.
Keep overreaching, and pulling stunts like the indoctrination attempt at that high school in Connecticut, and you may even get to see a roll back.
As a lawyer, I can understand people wanting to formalize their legal responsibilities to one another.
"After all, about a decade or so ago, same-sex marriage was a bridge too far, and civil unions were the object of debate, favored by gay/lesbian advocates and roundly assailed by conservatives, whose goal was to prevent any sort of formalization of same-sex relationships from being codified into law."
You have just identified the problem. People who were willing to compromise and allow gay couples legal benefits in the various states that passed civil union laws ended up getting kicked in the teeth, and the gay rights activists who claimed they were just seeking the same legal benefits as married couples revealed themselves to be disingenuous frauds.
"You can see the power of long-term social shift, Mr. English, when it finds embodiment even in you."
You lost in California, the bluest of blue states, and Maine when gay marriage was voted on by the citizens of those states. You could not even get gay marriage laws through state legislatures in blue states like New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maryland. You only won in New York when two Republican legislators violated pledges to their constituents and voted in favor of the law.
Keep overreaching, and pulling stunts like the indoctrination attempt at that high school in Connecticut, and you may even get to see a roll back.
10.27.2011 | 1:55pm
Felix says:
Michael PS,
Civil unions serve the purpose of granting substantially similar rights as marriage without affronting the sensibilities of those who prefer the term "marriage" to be an exclusively heterosexual affair.
But I see a much more compelling public purpose in treating same-sex couples as full peers of opposite-sex ones, in both name and deed, than in upholding a principle of paternity relating to the incidentally fertile nature of many (though not all) opposite-sex couplings. And in time, I think the French electorate will recognize that.
As for us here in the States, of course, we have case law to establish that separate is never equal, and plenty of commentary to show that the opponents of same-sex marriage have little interest in genuine equality.
Civil unions serve the purpose of granting substantially similar rights as marriage without affronting the sensibilities of those who prefer the term "marriage" to be an exclusively heterosexual affair.
But I see a much more compelling public purpose in treating same-sex couples as full peers of opposite-sex ones, in both name and deed, than in upholding a principle of paternity relating to the incidentally fertile nature of many (though not all) opposite-sex couplings. And in time, I think the French electorate will recognize that.
As for us here in the States, of course, we have case law to establish that separate is never equal, and plenty of commentary to show that the opponents of same-sex marriage have little interest in genuine equality.
10.27.2011 | 4:02pm
R. Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Jonathan,
1) Compassion for the children means that we place them only in situations that will protect them. We both agree on that.
2) The legal sanction of homosexual marriage would be an historical precedent, having never occurred anywhere in the world in any part of recorded history until now. This strongly suggests that we need scientific evidence that this new living arrangement for children is safe and not harmful to them.
3) Despite the claims you and the newly released report are making, there is not even one scientific study on homosexual men and their positive effect on children in a family context-----not one that has sufficient science to change the historical precedent that has recognized the essential needs of children for the complimentary parenting of a mother and a father.
4) On the other hand, there are studies that should make us pause and not sanction homosexual marriage at this time. The report you cite unequivocally stated that there is not one study showing ill effects of children being raised by homosexual parents, in this case lesbian partners. I refer you to Sarantakos’ research study that was better designed than any to date. It demonstrates that homosexual parenting is harmful for the children.
In Sarantkos’ well designed study of 174 primary school children with 58 children in married families, 58 in heterosexual cohabitating and 58 in homosexual unions, married couples offer the best environment for a child’s social and education environment, followed by cohabiting couples and finally by homosexual couples. (1)
5) There is an entirely different kind of scientific evidence that again should make us pause. It is the statistics on stability and longevity for men as partners.
One of the largest studies of male same-sex couple revealed that only seven of the 156 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. The majority of relationships lasted less than five years. Couples with a relationship lasting more than five years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship. The authors concluded: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10-year mark is the lack of possessiveness. . . . Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can be the greatest internal threat to their staying together.” (2)
In regard to health a major study published in the journal Cancer in May 2011 revealed that men with SSA in California are twice as likely to report a cancer as heterosexual men. Most troubling was the median age of onset of cancer in the men with SSA - 41 years old. (3)
6. Numerous studies document the vital importance of a mother’s role in child development and the serious conflicts in those deprived of early maternal care. These studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more soothing.
In other studies, children’s academic success and healthy behaviors were tied to their mothers’ involvement in talking with them, listening to them, and answering their questions. (4) As children grow, mothers provide essential stimulation when they ask questions or give suggestions that invite the child’s thinking, or provide conceptual links among objects, activities, locations, persons, or emotions. (5)
Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood. (6)
7) If your conjecture (and that is all it is at this point) is correct that men marrying men does no harm, are you willing to wait for the scientific evidence that clearly shows this (and contradicts what I have presented above) or will you insist on a change in the law right now? Please do not take offense at this next comment. Please see it for what it is: a challenge to you from the scientific literature. A recent study in Israel of 90 homosexual and 109 heterosexual men found that the former had statistically significantly higher levels of narcissism, including what is called pathological narcissism, than the heterosexual participants. (7) The study was done to directly test Freud’s hypothesis of elevated levels of narcissism in the male homosexual population. That hypothesis was supported. If you insist without the data, what might you be doing to the children? Are you willing to wait until there are sufficient data to support your view and to refute mine? If you and the homosexual advocates insist on plowing ahead without these data, does this not suggest to you a narcissism that is not in the child's best interest?
The present view that healthy child development is not dependent upon the complimentary parenting of a mother and a father is disputed by all the social science research that demonstrates the severe academic, social and psychological conflicts in fatherless children and the vital role of the mother to a child’s mental health.
1. Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.
2. McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A. (1985) The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice Hall.
3. Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation. Cancer, May 9.
4. Luster, T., Bates, L., Vandebelt, M., & Nievar, M. A. (2004). "Family advocates’ perspectives on the early academic success of children born to low-income adolescent mothers". Family Relations, 53(1), 68-77.
5. Hubbs-Tait, L., Culp, A. M., Culp, R. E., & Miller, C. E. (2002). "Relation of maternal cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and intrusive behavior during Head Start to children’s kindergarten cognitive abilities". Child Development, 73 (1), 110–131.
6. Kobak, R. (1999). "The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention". In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Rubinstein, G. (2010). “Narcissism and self-esteem among homosexual and heterosexual male students.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 36, 24-34.
1) Compassion for the children means that we place them only in situations that will protect them. We both agree on that.
2) The legal sanction of homosexual marriage would be an historical precedent, having never occurred anywhere in the world in any part of recorded history until now. This strongly suggests that we need scientific evidence that this new living arrangement for children is safe and not harmful to them.
3) Despite the claims you and the newly released report are making, there is not even one scientific study on homosexual men and their positive effect on children in a family context-----not one that has sufficient science to change the historical precedent that has recognized the essential needs of children for the complimentary parenting of a mother and a father.
4) On the other hand, there are studies that should make us pause and not sanction homosexual marriage at this time. The report you cite unequivocally stated that there is not one study showing ill effects of children being raised by homosexual parents, in this case lesbian partners. I refer you to Sarantakos’ research study that was better designed than any to date. It demonstrates that homosexual parenting is harmful for the children.
In Sarantkos’ well designed study of 174 primary school children with 58 children in married families, 58 in heterosexual cohabitating and 58 in homosexual unions, married couples offer the best environment for a child’s social and education environment, followed by cohabiting couples and finally by homosexual couples. (1)
5) There is an entirely different kind of scientific evidence that again should make us pause. It is the statistics on stability and longevity for men as partners.
One of the largest studies of male same-sex couple revealed that only seven of the 156 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. The majority of relationships lasted less than five years. Couples with a relationship lasting more than five years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship. The authors concluded: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10-year mark is the lack of possessiveness. . . . Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can be the greatest internal threat to their staying together.” (2)
In regard to health a major study published in the journal Cancer in May 2011 revealed that men with SSA in California are twice as likely to report a cancer as heterosexual men. Most troubling was the median age of onset of cancer in the men with SSA - 41 years old. (3)
6. Numerous studies document the vital importance of a mother’s role in child development and the serious conflicts in those deprived of early maternal care. These studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more soothing.
In other studies, children’s academic success and healthy behaviors were tied to their mothers’ involvement in talking with them, listening to them, and answering their questions. (4) As children grow, mothers provide essential stimulation when they ask questions or give suggestions that invite the child’s thinking, or provide conceptual links among objects, activities, locations, persons, or emotions. (5)
Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood. (6)
7) If your conjecture (and that is all it is at this point) is correct that men marrying men does no harm, are you willing to wait for the scientific evidence that clearly shows this (and contradicts what I have presented above) or will you insist on a change in the law right now? Please do not take offense at this next comment. Please see it for what it is: a challenge to you from the scientific literature. A recent study in Israel of 90 homosexual and 109 heterosexual men found that the former had statistically significantly higher levels of narcissism, including what is called pathological narcissism, than the heterosexual participants. (7) The study was done to directly test Freud’s hypothesis of elevated levels of narcissism in the male homosexual population. That hypothesis was supported. If you insist without the data, what might you be doing to the children? Are you willing to wait until there are sufficient data to support your view and to refute mine? If you and the homosexual advocates insist on plowing ahead without these data, does this not suggest to you a narcissism that is not in the child's best interest?
The present view that healthy child development is not dependent upon the complimentary parenting of a mother and a father is disputed by all the social science research that demonstrates the severe academic, social and psychological conflicts in fatherless children and the vital role of the mother to a child’s mental health.
1. Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.
2. McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A. (1985) The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Prentice Hall.
3. Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation. Cancer, May 9.
4. Luster, T., Bates, L., Vandebelt, M., & Nievar, M. A. (2004). "Family advocates’ perspectives on the early academic success of children born to low-income adolescent mothers". Family Relations, 53(1), 68-77.
5. Hubbs-Tait, L., Culp, A. M., Culp, R. E., & Miller, C. E. (2002). "Relation of maternal cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and intrusive behavior during Head Start to children’s kindergarten cognitive abilities". Child Development, 73 (1), 110–131.
6. Kobak, R. (1999). "The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention". In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Rubinstein, G. (2010). “Narcissism and self-esteem among homosexual and heterosexual male students.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 36, 24-34.
10.27.2011 | 4:25pm
R. Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
This is the correct and full third citation for the comment that I just submitted. Thank you.
Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation. U. Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation,” Cancer 117 (2011): 3796–3804.
Boehmer, U., et al. (2011) Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation. U. Cancer Survivorship and Sexual Orientation,” Cancer 117 (2011): 3796–3804.
10.27.2011 | 10:46pm
Gil Costello says:
Thank you, thank you and thank you R. Fitzgibbons, and thank you Brian English and everyone else fighting on this thread and everywhere else for the lives of our children, for children more than ever in all of history are the sacrificial lambs, the modern/post-modern martyr of the innocents, especially on the altar of sex liberation. And especially thank you, Nancy D., for you epitomize the child who declared that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and I'm thinking particularly of gay pride parades. I mean, if it's in your face, how could it be anything other than what it is?
My days are numbered, but I'm confident that the vanguards who have committed to the fight to save the children will not back off, even with the continuing onslaught of persecution, especially at our universities and in popular media. Thank you all and God bless you, and as my mom would say every time I did a sacrificial deed with no reward, "You will be rewarded in heaven."
My days are numbered, but I'm confident that the vanguards who have committed to the fight to save the children will not back off, even with the continuing onslaught of persecution, especially at our universities and in popular media. Thank you all and God bless you, and as my mom would say every time I did a sacrificial deed with no reward, "You will be rewarded in heaven."
10.27.2011 | 11:13pm
Gil Costello says:
It seems like a lifetime ago that I viewed Giuseppe Tornatore's "A Pure Formality": it was for me the ultimate cinematic meditation on what constitutes identity.
It occurred to me that when back in the early 70s when I was a revolutionary, the main target to undermine a Patriarchal dominance that had lasted thousands of years was the nuclear family. The nuclear family, of course, is a man and woman committed to each other with the intention of having children, THEE model, the cornerstone of civilization.
In every revolutionary meeting this subject would emerge. Nuclear family is the enemy: it promotes radical individualism in the context of sexual repression. That was the core of the argument.
This is why I'm convinced that the argument centered in homosexual sex and heterosexual sex avoids the deeper issue: is the nuclear family construct of man and woman birthing children to promote the greater good of society valid or not? R. Fitszgibbons answers this for me.
It occurred to me that when back in the early 70s when I was a revolutionary, the main target to undermine a Patriarchal dominance that had lasted thousands of years was the nuclear family. The nuclear family, of course, is a man and woman committed to each other with the intention of having children, THEE model, the cornerstone of civilization.
In every revolutionary meeting this subject would emerge. Nuclear family is the enemy: it promotes radical individualism in the context of sexual repression. That was the core of the argument.
This is why I'm convinced that the argument centered in homosexual sex and heterosexual sex avoids the deeper issue: is the nuclear family construct of man and woman birthing children to promote the greater good of society valid or not? R. Fitszgibbons answers this for me.
10.28.2011 | 1:26am
Felix says:
Brian English,
Social progress also means that goalposts move. And don't confuse political setbacks with long-term trends. Young people accept same-sex marriage---everything else will flow from that, in time.
R. Fitzgibbons,
"Homosexual marriage" is not "a new living arrangement for children." Not only are children being raised by same-sex couples, married or otherwise, there is no political momentum to prohibiting this whatsoever. No one's clamoring to re-institute a ban on adoption by same-sex couples, let alone child-rearing in general; this is not and will never again be on the table. That ship has sailed, that horse has left the barn. You've lost that battle, and you're wasting your breath by trying to argue for it.
The argument you have to make is whether a child being raised by a same-sex couple is better or worse off if that couple is married. If "stability and longevity" are desirable characteristics of the spousal relationship for you, then I think you're going to have a tough time arguing that the kids won't do as well if Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad have tied the knot.
Social progress also means that goalposts move. And don't confuse political setbacks with long-term trends. Young people accept same-sex marriage---everything else will flow from that, in time.
R. Fitzgibbons,
"Homosexual marriage" is not "a new living arrangement for children." Not only are children being raised by same-sex couples, married or otherwise, there is no political momentum to prohibiting this whatsoever. No one's clamoring to re-institute a ban on adoption by same-sex couples, let alone child-rearing in general; this is not and will never again be on the table. That ship has sailed, that horse has left the barn. You've lost that battle, and you're wasting your breath by trying to argue for it.
The argument you have to make is whether a child being raised by a same-sex couple is better or worse off if that couple is married. If "stability and longevity" are desirable characteristics of the spousal relationship for you, then I think you're going to have a tough time arguing that the kids won't do as well if Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad have tied the knot.
10.28.2011 | 3:56am
Michael PS says:
The issue of adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be separated from that of SSM.
Most European countries confine adoption to married couples or single individuals, for the concept of an indivisible filiation to two people with no juridical bond between them is, frankly, unintelligible to civilians. Adoption by single individuals is very rare (there are about five times as many couples approved for adoption as there are children available for adoption) and is confined in practice to those with an existing tie by blood or marriage to the child. A step-parent is the typical example.
In the Netherlands, same-sex married couples can only adopt a child who is a Dutch citizen, to comply with the Hague Convention on International Adoption. Note that 15% of US adoptions take place under the Convention and that figure has been rising over the years
Again, in many European jurisdictions, assisted reproduction is only permitted to treat a pathological condition, which excludes same-sex couples. Regarding surrogacy, France follows the principle of the civil law that “Only things in trade can be the subject of an agreement” and neither children, nor human genetic material are regarded as articles of commerce.
Most European countries confine adoption to married couples or single individuals, for the concept of an indivisible filiation to two people with no juridical bond between them is, frankly, unintelligible to civilians. Adoption by single individuals is very rare (there are about five times as many couples approved for adoption as there are children available for adoption) and is confined in practice to those with an existing tie by blood or marriage to the child. A step-parent is the typical example.
In the Netherlands, same-sex married couples can only adopt a child who is a Dutch citizen, to comply with the Hague Convention on International Adoption. Note that 15% of US adoptions take place under the Convention and that figure has been rising over the years
Again, in many European jurisdictions, assisted reproduction is only permitted to treat a pathological condition, which excludes same-sex couples. Regarding surrogacy, France follows the principle of the civil law that “Only things in trade can be the subject of an agreement” and neither children, nor human genetic material are regarded as articles of commerce.
10.28.2011 | 9:30am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
R. Fitzgibbons, M.D.,
Regarding your question:
"If your conjecture (and that is all it is at this point) is correct that men marrying men does no harm, are you willing to wait for the scientific evidence that clearly shows this (and contradicts what I have presented above) or will you insist on a change in the law right now?"
Virginia passed a constitutional amendment barring marriage, civil union and even a legal status that "assigns the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage." My family is not moving and there is no practical way to challenge the law, at the state level. At the federal level, with the current make up of congress, there is little chance that DOMA will be repealed. Your question is a bit moot, however my answer is no, of course not because for *any* particular marriage you may find "scientific evidence" that the particular union will be bad for children because the spouses belong to this group or that. But for heterosexuals, aside from age and genetic (sibling, parent/child, first cousin) tests, the state performs no such test. The state in essence trusts the agency of the consenting spouses.
It doesn't trust the agency of same-sex consenting spouses, and it never will if we are all asked to wait for "scientific evidence". You do see the tautological issue don't you? How can that evidence be gathered if the group being studied is barred from being the group to be studied?
More importantly, there is a leak in your argument. Conservatives like my family will continue to marry, raise children and participate in our communities regardless of legal restrictions. As Felix points out, our children will suffer under the status quo which amounts to state-sponsored second class family status. Every moment that we wait will harm our children.
Wait? Of course not. Now's the time!
Regarding your question:
"If your conjecture (and that is all it is at this point) is correct that men marrying men does no harm, are you willing to wait for the scientific evidence that clearly shows this (and contradicts what I have presented above) or will you insist on a change in the law right now?"
Virginia passed a constitutional amendment barring marriage, civil union and even a legal status that "assigns the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage." My family is not moving and there is no practical way to challenge the law, at the state level. At the federal level, with the current make up of congress, there is little chance that DOMA will be repealed. Your question is a bit moot, however my answer is no, of course not because for *any* particular marriage you may find "scientific evidence" that the particular union will be bad for children because the spouses belong to this group or that. But for heterosexuals, aside from age and genetic (sibling, parent/child, first cousin) tests, the state performs no such test. The state in essence trusts the agency of the consenting spouses.
It doesn't trust the agency of same-sex consenting spouses, and it never will if we are all asked to wait for "scientific evidence". You do see the tautological issue don't you? How can that evidence be gathered if the group being studied is barred from being the group to be studied?
More importantly, there is a leak in your argument. Conservatives like my family will continue to marry, raise children and participate in our communities regardless of legal restrictions. As Felix points out, our children will suffer under the status quo which amounts to state-sponsored second class family status. Every moment that we wait will harm our children.
Wait? Of course not. Now's the time!
10.28.2011 | 9:48am
Brian English says:
"Young people accept same-sex marriage---everything else will flow from that, in time."
And as I pointed out to you above, young people become middle-aged and old people, and their views change. Do you seriously believe that the 60-year olds voting against gay marriage today had the same views now on morality that they had back in 1971?
And there are more important long-term trends you are ignoring: (1) Hispanics, who are primarily Catholic or Evangelical, are the fastest growing ethnic group in the country; and (2) Muslims, as a percentage, are the fastest growing religious group in the country.
Finally, overreaching incidents like the one in Connecticut are really going to bring home to people what is going on here. I suspect that what you are actually seeing now is the high-point of the gay rights movement for the foreseeable future. Obama will soon be out of the White House, Glee will be going off the air, and Lady Gaga will soon be "Lady who?" Your one hope is that the courts keep trying to get involved in this issue, but we saw in Iowa, the public is starting to get fed up with that.
And as I pointed out to you above, young people become middle-aged and old people, and their views change. Do you seriously believe that the 60-year olds voting against gay marriage today had the same views now on morality that they had back in 1971?
And there are more important long-term trends you are ignoring: (1) Hispanics, who are primarily Catholic or Evangelical, are the fastest growing ethnic group in the country; and (2) Muslims, as a percentage, are the fastest growing religious group in the country.
Finally, overreaching incidents like the one in Connecticut are really going to bring home to people what is going on here. I suspect that what you are actually seeing now is the high-point of the gay rights movement for the foreseeable future. Obama will soon be out of the White House, Glee will be going off the air, and Lady Gaga will soon be "Lady who?" Your one hope is that the courts keep trying to get involved in this issue, but we saw in Iowa, the public is starting to get fed up with that.
10.28.2011 | 1:29pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Felix says: If "stability and longevity" are desirable characteristics of the spousal relationship for you....”
He is uninterested in stability and longevity, presumably because he is interested not only in same-sex marriage and in same-sex adoption but also in literally re-defining the characteristics WITHIN marriage itself. If a couple does not want stability, so be it. If a couple wants to agree on multiple partners, so be it. Will the young people to whom he refers be so complacent for same-sex marriage when they hear this?
In the book, After the Ball, the authors are clear that to legitimize same-sex marriage the homosexual community must first (first, not always) present itself as looking like the couple next door. Once they gain acceptance, then they use their newly-won political leverage to let people know that marriage now will not be about monogamy and stability. This next step redefines what happens within marriage.
One more point. Felix thinks that a contemporary political trend signals stability within that trend. From an historical perspective this is not true. The abortion industry is one case in point. Not only are teenage girls now having fewer abortions than 30 years ago but also the cut-back in federal funding for abortion is happening and this idea is gaining momentum.
Felix must undertand that just like in the situation of the abortion industry, that does not protect children, there are advocates watching how and if children are protected in same-sex partnering. If children are not protected, we are not going away. Felix's attempted persuasion for us to save our breath is going unheeded.
The rights and needs of children to a mother and a father, so well documented by social science research and by every culture in the world, should be protected by the state. The needs of children take precedence over the narcissistic, entitled thinking of adults who believe they have the right to cruelly deprive a child of a father or a mother.
He is uninterested in stability and longevity, presumably because he is interested not only in same-sex marriage and in same-sex adoption but also in literally re-defining the characteristics WITHIN marriage itself. If a couple does not want stability, so be it. If a couple wants to agree on multiple partners, so be it. Will the young people to whom he refers be so complacent for same-sex marriage when they hear this?
In the book, After the Ball, the authors are clear that to legitimize same-sex marriage the homosexual community must first (first, not always) present itself as looking like the couple next door. Once they gain acceptance, then they use their newly-won political leverage to let people know that marriage now will not be about monogamy and stability. This next step redefines what happens within marriage.
One more point. Felix thinks that a contemporary political trend signals stability within that trend. From an historical perspective this is not true. The abortion industry is one case in point. Not only are teenage girls now having fewer abortions than 30 years ago but also the cut-back in federal funding for abortion is happening and this idea is gaining momentum.
Felix must undertand that just like in the situation of the abortion industry, that does not protect children, there are advocates watching how and if children are protected in same-sex partnering. If children are not protected, we are not going away. Felix's attempted persuasion for us to save our breath is going unheeded.
The rights and needs of children to a mother and a father, so well documented by social science research and by every culture in the world, should be protected by the state. The needs of children take precedence over the narcissistic, entitled thinking of adults who believe they have the right to cruelly deprive a child of a father or a mother.
10.28.2011 | 5:50pm
Jason says:
Rick: Despite what you may wish to believe, I and my partner ARE the couple next door. We have no interest in non-monogamous relationships or whatever else you're accusing us of (you forgot to mention that we're probably pedophiles who have sex with animals). We are normal people who have built a family for ourselves and who simply want the same legal protections for our family that you enjoy for yours. So, regardless of whatever your book you were citing has to say, it does not speak for everyone. What you and your book are doing is stereotyping all gays and lesbians to demonize us all for the extremist fringe members of our community. I could do that too, by saying that all straight marriages will end in divorce because all husbands will cheat on their wives, but that doesn't make it any more true than your supposition that "to legitimize same-sex marriage the homosexual community must first (first, not always) present itself as looking like the couple next door. Once they gain acceptance, then they use their newly-won political leverage to let people know that marriage now will not be about monogamy and stability."
10.28.2011 | 9:18pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your respectful challenge to my post. I would like to correct one of your points and further clarify one of mine. First, there is no credible "scientific evidence" if the focus is on"*any* particular marriage" as you state. Science is based in this case on statistical trends over a large number of cases over time and across different regions. No one marriage is going to allow for scientific conclusions.
Now, to the clarification of my position. I am not asking you or any other person to wait until the statistics are definitive regarding the actual marriage of two men (across many such relationships, across time, and region). Men are living with men now and some have children. These we can study and form scientific conclusions. This we must do for the sake of protecting the children.
The evidence I cited previously is enough to make the thinking person pause. To date, the scientific evidence is not favorable to the state sanctioning homosexual marriage, and I need not reiterate that here.
Let me put it another way. Suppose we were just at the beginning of investigating the effects of smoking on health and we had, say, three studies across different groups here and in one other country. This is not a lot of studies, but early evidence that is consistent must make us pause. We have now accumulated this early evidence (Srantakos as cited previously and I add here the research of Sirota, Archives if Psychiatric Nursing, 2009, 23, 289-297, not cited by me previously). I could cite others as well, but my point is that homosexual men raising children as a normative and state-sanctioned activity may not be in the best interests of the child.
I know it takes courage to look at the evidence objectively and conclude truthfully, even if the evidence goes against beliefs and wishes, but this is what we have. A heroic stance now is to protect children even if beliefs and wishes tell us otherwise. It is the loving thing to do and is based to date on early but accumulating scientific evidence that makes us pause.
Now, to the clarification of my position. I am not asking you or any other person to wait until the statistics are definitive regarding the actual marriage of two men (across many such relationships, across time, and region). Men are living with men now and some have children. These we can study and form scientific conclusions. This we must do for the sake of protecting the children.
The evidence I cited previously is enough to make the thinking person pause. To date, the scientific evidence is not favorable to the state sanctioning homosexual marriage, and I need not reiterate that here.
Let me put it another way. Suppose we were just at the beginning of investigating the effects of smoking on health and we had, say, three studies across different groups here and in one other country. This is not a lot of studies, but early evidence that is consistent must make us pause. We have now accumulated this early evidence (Srantakos as cited previously and I add here the research of Sirota, Archives if Psychiatric Nursing, 2009, 23, 289-297, not cited by me previously). I could cite others as well, but my point is that homosexual men raising children as a normative and state-sanctioned activity may not be in the best interests of the child.
I know it takes courage to look at the evidence objectively and conclude truthfully, even if the evidence goes against beliefs and wishes, but this is what we have. A heroic stance now is to protect children even if beliefs and wishes tell us otherwise. It is the loving thing to do and is based to date on early but accumulating scientific evidence that makes us pause.
10.28.2011 | 10:01pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jason, for your comments. Did you know that the book, After the Ball, is written by two homosexual men? Your beef, in other words, is with those who are activists for your cause and they themselves see a sequence to reform that you apparently find offensive. You will have to take that up with the activist homosexual authors, not with me, for I was only paraphrasing their strategy. If you feel demonized and stereotyped, please go to the authors of After the Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
One more point, if I may. When I cite research on stability and longevity in homosexual relationships, I am referring to findings of tendencies within the homosexual population. Tendencies, as I am sure you realize, do not describe each and every person who is studied. Yes, some homosexual men are loyal to each other in their relationships, but the tendency, as captured by science, is that such exclusive loyalty is not the norm. This should make you and me and all who love children pause and reflect on the implication of this for these same children.
One more point, if I may. When I cite research on stability and longevity in homosexual relationships, I am referring to findings of tendencies within the homosexual population. Tendencies, as I am sure you realize, do not describe each and every person who is studied. Yes, some homosexual men are loyal to each other in their relationships, but the tendency, as captured by science, is that such exclusive loyalty is not the norm. This should make you and me and all who love children pause and reflect on the implication of this for these same children.
10.29.2011 | 12:38am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D.,
The *any* test is used to illustrate discrimination. Wikipedia reports that 'On January 3, 2004, [Brittany] Spears married childhood friend Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, Nevada. The marriage was annulled 55 hours later, stating that Spears "lacked understanding of her actions"'
There may be a scientifically significant sample there. Couples who marry at Las Vegas wedding chapels, may break up later, after having children, and the effects on the children may be devastating. The state needs to protect those children. Maybe younger couples, or bi-racial couples, or couples with addiction problems, or mental illness, or poverty, or fame harm their children more than other groups.
If the state wanted to protect children and leave no stone unturned, it could employ social scientists to survey, analyze and regulate groups that produce statistically unfavorable outcomes. However, if same-sex couples are scrutinize or barred and other-sex couples aren't, that is discrimination plain and simple. There has to be outcome based measurements, and the gender of the parents doesn't provide the fidelity to be a significant predictor of outcome.
The *any* test is used to illustrate discrimination. Wikipedia reports that 'On January 3, 2004, [Brittany] Spears married childhood friend Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, Nevada. The marriage was annulled 55 hours later, stating that Spears "lacked understanding of her actions"'
There may be a scientifically significant sample there. Couples who marry at Las Vegas wedding chapels, may break up later, after having children, and the effects on the children may be devastating. The state needs to protect those children. Maybe younger couples, or bi-racial couples, or couples with addiction problems, or mental illness, or poverty, or fame harm their children more than other groups.
If the state wanted to protect children and leave no stone unturned, it could employ social scientists to survey, analyze and regulate groups that produce statistically unfavorable outcomes. However, if same-sex couples are scrutinize or barred and other-sex couples aren't, that is discrimination plain and simple. There has to be outcome based measurements, and the gender of the parents doesn't provide the fidelity to be a significant predictor of outcome.
10.29.2011 | 2:09pm
Michael PS says:
Jonathan Weintraub
In the Bčgles case the court said of the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples that its “specificity and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous”
This distinction is objectively grounded, whereas the infertility of a given opposite-sex couple is subjective: the result of causes pertaining to them as individuals (age, pathology, choice); it is not a characteristic of opposite-sex couples, as such.
In the Bčgles case the court said of the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples that its “specificity and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous”
This distinction is objectively grounded, whereas the infertility of a given opposite-sex couple is subjective: the result of causes pertaining to them as individuals (age, pathology, choice); it is not a characteristic of opposite-sex couples, as such.
10.29.2011 | 6:39pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D> says:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your latest post. I am challenged by your views and so I thank you for allowing me to go more deeply in my own. May I now respond with two challenges of my own? First, let us concentrate on the logical fallacy you present. Your example of Brittany Spears is a classic case of generalizing from the specific, a fallacy in logic. Let me be as clear as I can be. Yes, you will find that certain sectors of society are at greater risk for marriage failure than other sectors. The Spears example is a good one. Yet, we must not now make the error of saying that all kinds of marital situations between a man and a woman must be regulated or even banned because of this one example (or any other of myriad examples you can give in a specific sense). The specific issue you describe cannot now be generalized to all man-woman arrangements.
My second point is this: You did not make a clear distinction between the terms ban and regulate. You conflated the two and again this is a problem in distinguishing terms, another problem in logic. States do regulate regarding man-woman marriage, for example, by having a waiting period before marriage (which does occur) or having credible witnesses (which does occur) and by imposing age restrictions (again, these occur). My point is that society does try to regulate marriage between one man and one woman in certain sectors where there is or could be obvious difficulty.
I digress for a moment on this next point. You tried the move in logic which we call reductio ad absurdum (trying to reduce my ideas to the absurd by putting forth an extreme example), by slipping in the issue of bi-racial marriage. This form of argumentation is too obviously flawed and so it weakens your case if such a point is central to your argument.
Now, back to your more challenging points. Where you have failed to convince me is in this area: All of your examples are of problems within an already sanctioned kind of union, man and woman. You are now asking the state to sanction a kind of union that has never, in the entire history of humanity, been sanctioned. To be sanctioned, this kind of union has to be shown (and science is the best way to "show" data) to be on the average in the best interest of the children. To date, the data do not give support for this. In fact, the data to date require caution for those who look at the data for what they are instead of for what someone wishfully wants them to be. I need not reiterate the findings here that cause the majority of people to pause: instability in the man-man relationship, lack of longevity in such relationships, greater risk of medical illnesses (2011 Cancer article with twice the prevalence of cancer and median age of onset 41), the denial of the need of a child for maternal nurturance which is recognized by all cultures of the world, the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders, a daughter's development that includes mistrust in relationships when she is in her 20's (see Sirota, 2009), and so forth.
As one more point of clarification, those data cited above are for central tendencies (averages, what is the norm in man-man relationships) or for meaningful statistically significant differences between man-man and man-woman relationships (Sirota's study is one example). Your example of Spears is not of a central tendency (an average of how man-woman relationships work), but instead is of an extreme tendency, of what statisticians call an outlier effect. We are talking about two entirely different kinds of patterns, one normative and the other extreme within the populations under discussion.
Thus, for these reasons, both rational and scientific, I cannot alter my views and I now challenge you to re-think yours.
My second point is this: You did not make a clear distinction between the terms ban and regulate. You conflated the two and again this is a problem in distinguishing terms, another problem in logic. States do regulate regarding man-woman marriage, for example, by having a waiting period before marriage (which does occur) or having credible witnesses (which does occur) and by imposing age restrictions (again, these occur). My point is that society does try to regulate marriage between one man and one woman in certain sectors where there is or could be obvious difficulty.
I digress for a moment on this next point. You tried the move in logic which we call reductio ad absurdum (trying to reduce my ideas to the absurd by putting forth an extreme example), by slipping in the issue of bi-racial marriage. This form of argumentation is too obviously flawed and so it weakens your case if such a point is central to your argument.
Now, back to your more challenging points. Where you have failed to convince me is in this area: All of your examples are of problems within an already sanctioned kind of union, man and woman. You are now asking the state to sanction a kind of union that has never, in the entire history of humanity, been sanctioned. To be sanctioned, this kind of union has to be shown (and science is the best way to "show" data) to be on the average in the best interest of the children. To date, the data do not give support for this. In fact, the data to date require caution for those who look at the data for what they are instead of for what someone wishfully wants them to be. I need not reiterate the findings here that cause the majority of people to pause: instability in the man-man relationship, lack of longevity in such relationships, greater risk of medical illnesses (2011 Cancer article with twice the prevalence of cancer and median age of onset 41), the denial of the need of a child for maternal nurturance which is recognized by all cultures of the world, the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders, a daughter's development that includes mistrust in relationships when she is in her 20's (see Sirota, 2009), and so forth.
As one more point of clarification, those data cited above are for central tendencies (averages, what is the norm in man-man relationships) or for meaningful statistically significant differences between man-man and man-woman relationships (Sirota's study is one example). Your example of Spears is not of a central tendency (an average of how man-woman relationships work), but instead is of an extreme tendency, of what statisticians call an outlier effect. We are talking about two entirely different kinds of patterns, one normative and the other extreme within the populations under discussion.
Thus, for these reasons, both rational and scientific, I cannot alter my views and I now challenge you to re-think yours.
10.29.2011 | 9:21pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Michael PS,
The statement below is just plain wrong because conservative or traditional same-sex couples *are* concerned. I'll vouch for that fact.
"Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage."
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D,
I apologize for the rhetorical devices and/or logical fallacies. Of course, Brittany Spears doesn't represent all heterosexual couples. That wasn't the point. There are parent/child relationships that harm children. Social scientists can measure risk factors. For example, the Institute for American Values cites evidence that "donor" children who don't know their biological fathers are harmed.
With this in mind, the state could bar sperm donation, or they could regulate the relationship. For example they could stipulate that the child has the right to information about the donor's identity. State actions in that regard apply to sperm donation. They don't apply to marriage.
I guess I'm making a strict scrutiny argument. Any gay or lesbian couple has just as good a chance at raising a child as any heterosexual couple. If the state doesn't bar heterosexual couples from trying, and doesn't regulate their families, it shouldn't do so to homosexual couples. As I said, we're raising families already and discriminatory bars against institutional recognition does harm real children.
You know the Hyppocratic Oath? First do no harm.
p.s. - I don't believe the studies you are citing are valid, e.g. twice the prevalence of cancer and median age of cancer onset 41? Even if true, there are populations of heterosexuals who probably have equal or greater risks of medical illness but the state doesn't bar them from marrying.
The statement below is just plain wrong because conservative or traditional same-sex couples *are* concerned. I'll vouch for that fact.
"Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage."
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D,
I apologize for the rhetorical devices and/or logical fallacies. Of course, Brittany Spears doesn't represent all heterosexual couples. That wasn't the point. There are parent/child relationships that harm children. Social scientists can measure risk factors. For example, the Institute for American Values cites evidence that "donor" children who don't know their biological fathers are harmed.
With this in mind, the state could bar sperm donation, or they could regulate the relationship. For example they could stipulate that the child has the right to information about the donor's identity. State actions in that regard apply to sperm donation. They don't apply to marriage.
I guess I'm making a strict scrutiny argument. Any gay or lesbian couple has just as good a chance at raising a child as any heterosexual couple. If the state doesn't bar heterosexual couples from trying, and doesn't regulate their families, it shouldn't do so to homosexual couples. As I said, we're raising families already and discriminatory bars against institutional recognition does harm real children.
You know the Hyppocratic Oath? First do no harm.
p.s. - I don't believe the studies you are citing are valid, e.g. twice the prevalence of cancer and median age of cancer onset 41? Even if true, there are populations of heterosexuals who probably have equal or greater risks of medical illness but the state doesn't bar them from marrying.
10.30.2011 | 10:43am
Nancy D. says:
Gil, it is I who would like to thank you and all those who defend God's intention for Marriage and the family. I am the mother of a daughter who struggles with a homosexual inclination that was greatly influenced by a date rape that occurred during her freshman year of college. When she continued to suffer trauma from the incident, it was suggested that her trauma might be due to an innate homosexual inclination. For several years, as she was indoctrinated into the homosexuality agenda, she was advised not to reveal her struggle to her parents, who as "conservative" Catholics were to be viewed as religious fanatics. I watched my beautiful, happy child turn into a very depressed young lady because she was not able to receive the appropriate counseling that would help her to heal her wounds, even though she attended a Catholic Jesuit University.
It is because I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, that I want her to learn how to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love by orienting herself towards He Who Is Love and Mercy, The Word of God Made Flesh.
It is because I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, that I want her to learn how to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love by orienting herself towards He Who Is Love and Mercy, The Word of God Made Flesh.
10.30.2011 | 4:10pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Nancy D.,
I'm so sorry for your daughter. Was she advised to talk to you about the rape?
I'm so sorry for your daughter. Was she advised to talk to you about the rape?
10.30.2011 | 9:19pm
Gil Costello says:
Jonathan Weintraub,
I suggest that you view the film "Comfort of Strangers". It involves an elderly couple accomplished at sadomasochistic games who engage a young couple who are not aware of the sadomasochistic games that establish the foundation of their relationship. And in the end, the elderly couple, knowing that the maiden in distress (masochist) who has children, and her lover who wants her to commit to ignoring them as the ultimate sadistic act, decide that the masochist, the woman, will in the end lose (destroying the principle of sadomasochism that the masochist will, in time, become the sadist) and the sadist will win (negating the principle that the masochist will become the sadist), negating the principle of sadomasochism, which is the fundamental principle of gay relationships. You reveal your committed sadism when you write to Nancy D.,
“I'm so sorry for your daughter. Was she advised to talk to you about the rape?"
You, in that statement, are engaging in sadistic delight, and attempting not only to discredit Nancy D. with an assault, but to continue your assault on the nuclear family.
Do you know your father’s name?
This is the nature of gay relationships (view Fassbinder's "Fox and His Friends" to get a clue). But Jonathan, regardless how enlightened you are and convinced you are that unbelieving gay relationships are superior to those committed to a nuclear family relationships, Nancy D. is still with us. She fights for her daughter, not a hedonistic principle. She is a warrior. And you are wrong in believing that her fight is inconsequential.
I suggest that you view the film "Comfort of Strangers". It involves an elderly couple accomplished at sadomasochistic games who engage a young couple who are not aware of the sadomasochistic games that establish the foundation of their relationship. And in the end, the elderly couple, knowing that the maiden in distress (masochist) who has children, and her lover who wants her to commit to ignoring them as the ultimate sadistic act, decide that the masochist, the woman, will in the end lose (destroying the principle of sadomasochism that the masochist will, in time, become the sadist) and the sadist will win (negating the principle that the masochist will become the sadist), negating the principle of sadomasochism, which is the fundamental principle of gay relationships. You reveal your committed sadism when you write to Nancy D.,
“I'm so sorry for your daughter. Was she advised to talk to you about the rape?"
You, in that statement, are engaging in sadistic delight, and attempting not only to discredit Nancy D. with an assault, but to continue your assault on the nuclear family.
Do you know your father’s name?
This is the nature of gay relationships (view Fassbinder's "Fox and His Friends" to get a clue). But Jonathan, regardless how enlightened you are and convinced you are that unbelieving gay relationships are superior to those committed to a nuclear family relationships, Nancy D. is still with us. She fights for her daughter, not a hedonistic principle. She is a warrior. And you are wrong in believing that her fight is inconsequential.
10.31.2011 | 7:13am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Gil Costello,
If you'd like to know my motivations for asking a question, then ask me.
Moderator,
Please review Mr. Costello's comment. He engages in ad-hominem and falsely assigns ideas and motivations to me. His comment does not "contribute to the discussion of an issue raised in the article". If you feel his comment was inappropriate, please let him know your thoughts.
If you'd like to know my motivations for asking a question, then ask me.
Moderator,
Please review Mr. Costello's comment. He engages in ad-hominem and falsely assigns ideas and motivations to me. His comment does not "contribute to the discussion of an issue raised in the article". If you feel his comment was inappropriate, please let him know your thoughts.
10.31.2011 | 4:40pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jonathan, for once again showing civility and respect in your response. I appreciate this second try at defending your position, but once again your argument does not persuade me. Your basic argument appears at the end. You say we are already raising children and so why not let the state officially sanction that? It is not an argument that is persuasive because you are not focusing on the data specifically regarding male-male fidelity in the relationship, which is near zero according to the homosexual activist authors of After the Ball. Their observations are confirmed by researchers already cited and posted. This is the area you need to address if readers will be sympathetic to your position.
May I add another issue, a subtle but important one. You slip in words like "ban" and I am not advocating banning. I am advocating protecting---protecting children first and foremost. The data discussed in the first paragraph should make anyone, even you I must add, pause regarding the fidelity statistics and the behavioral impact on children. I mention your word "ban" because this is the kind of word that the authors of After the Ball advocate that you use----to make me and others who speak the truth sound like oppressors and to make you look like a victim. It is an excellent move in rhetoric, but the logic of it again falls flat when you realize that our intention is protection.
If you adhere to "do no harm" then you have just challenged yourself to be a giver to children and allow them to grow up in a home in which a mother and a father practice fidelity toward each other.
Finally, I would like to challenge your P.S. You say you do not "believe" the statistics on the early onset of cancer in the homosexual male population. "Belief" has nothing to do with this. The data have been presented in a national peer-reviewed journal and so those data, once again, speak for themselves. Beliefs are irrelevant here.
May I add another issue, a subtle but important one. You slip in words like "ban" and I am not advocating banning. I am advocating protecting---protecting children first and foremost. The data discussed in the first paragraph should make anyone, even you I must add, pause regarding the fidelity statistics and the behavioral impact on children. I mention your word "ban" because this is the kind of word that the authors of After the Ball advocate that you use----to make me and others who speak the truth sound like oppressors and to make you look like a victim. It is an excellent move in rhetoric, but the logic of it again falls flat when you realize that our intention is protection.
If you adhere to "do no harm" then you have just challenged yourself to be a giver to children and allow them to grow up in a home in which a mother and a father practice fidelity toward each other.
Finally, I would like to challenge your P.S. You say you do not "believe" the statistics on the early onset of cancer in the homosexual male population. "Belief" has nothing to do with this. The data have been presented in a national peer-reviewed journal and so those data, once again, speak for themselves. Beliefs are irrelevant here.
10.31.2011 | 6:23pm
Jason says:
Rick,
With all respect, you seem to be stuck on this book of yours. Two people do not speak for an entire community, and an entire group should never, ever be held responsible for the actions of individual members of that group. I am my own person with my own strong set of morals, and I should not be held responsible for the moral failings of others. So here we come to three key points:
1. I am not guilty of infidelity, I am in a monogamous, loving, committed relationship and have been for over six years. The actions of others do not reflect on me, and the law should not discriminate against me on the basis of others.
2. I think we are in agreement that monogamy is key to a healthy, loving relationship. Marriage helps to promote monogamy, which is healthy in any relationship, regardless of the gender of the participants, so in essence denying marriage to committed same-sex couples is counterproductive to promoting monogamy. If promiscuity is a problem with the gay community, then denying them the ability to marry is, at best, doing nothing to help and at worst it is aggravating the problem.
3. Because we live in a secular nation in which all religions are held to be equally important, what any given religion has to say about homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the law. My religion teaches that marriage is about love and not about genitalia, and as such my church is willing to marry any two loving, committed adults. Because of things like the "Defense of Marriage Act", my religion is being discriminated against and told that marriages they perform for same-sex couples are not valid. That's why religion MUST be removed from the discussion, because we cannot legally favor some religions over others.
So ultimately, because of point 3, we have to be able to prove that allowing me to marry would somehow be harmful to society. Because of point 2, we can see that there ARE societal benefits to allowing me to marry. Because of point 1, we cannot hold the entire group responsible for the infidelities of some of their members (else heterosexuals wouldn't be allowed to marry on the basis of all the cheating husbands in the world).
That leaves us with a valid reason to allow gay marriage, no valid reason to deny it, and the justification that it should be up to the individual religion/church/faith to decide whether or not they wish to perform such marriages. Seems to me like that's the only possible fair solution.
With all respect, you seem to be stuck on this book of yours. Two people do not speak for an entire community, and an entire group should never, ever be held responsible for the actions of individual members of that group. I am my own person with my own strong set of morals, and I should not be held responsible for the moral failings of others. So here we come to three key points:
1. I am not guilty of infidelity, I am in a monogamous, loving, committed relationship and have been for over six years. The actions of others do not reflect on me, and the law should not discriminate against me on the basis of others.
2. I think we are in agreement that monogamy is key to a healthy, loving relationship. Marriage helps to promote monogamy, which is healthy in any relationship, regardless of the gender of the participants, so in essence denying marriage to committed same-sex couples is counterproductive to promoting monogamy. If promiscuity is a problem with the gay community, then denying them the ability to marry is, at best, doing nothing to help and at worst it is aggravating the problem.
3. Because we live in a secular nation in which all religions are held to be equally important, what any given religion has to say about homosexuality is completely irrelevant to the law. My religion teaches that marriage is about love and not about genitalia, and as such my church is willing to marry any two loving, committed adults. Because of things like the "Defense of Marriage Act", my religion is being discriminated against and told that marriages they perform for same-sex couples are not valid. That's why religion MUST be removed from the discussion, because we cannot legally favor some religions over others.
So ultimately, because of point 3, we have to be able to prove that allowing me to marry would somehow be harmful to society. Because of point 2, we can see that there ARE societal benefits to allowing me to marry. Because of point 1, we cannot hold the entire group responsible for the infidelities of some of their members (else heterosexuals wouldn't be allowed to marry on the basis of all the cheating husbands in the world).
That leaves us with a valid reason to allow gay marriage, no valid reason to deny it, and the justification that it should be up to the individual religion/church/faith to decide whether or not they wish to perform such marriages. Seems to me like that's the only possible fair solution.
10.31.2011 | 6:36pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. ,
I use the term 'ban' because that is precisely what the state-level constitutional amendments do. Not only do they ban same-sex marriage, they violate the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Maggie Gallagher put out a messaging piece where she told anti-gay activists to never use the phrase 'ban same-sex marriage' but instead to say 'protect traditional marriage'. I don't see those as equivalent. State constitutional amendments do ban same-sex marriage. To say otherwise is to bear false witness. They don't 'protect traditional marriage' - read the 31 or so statutes and see for yourself.
Regarding the male-male studies. Whether or not they were valid studies of the selected populations, they don't address *my* population. My population is a single family with nearly thirty years of love and fidelity. If you wanted to place my family in a study group, it would be of Jewish families who love and accept their GLBT children and support their families. Whereas the overall divorce rate is around 50%, the divorce rate is about 20% among Jewish families. The same statistic is probably true of both same-sex and other sex relationships within that population.
I'll grant you that the studies you cite may have been peer reviewed. I believe that the populations studied are not representative, certainly not with respect to the populations in my rather conservative circle. Many of the families in that circle are raising children or have adult children - yes, many of use are empty nesters. It's pretty difficult to convince us to abandon our families when we *are* families with long and successful track records. We *are* doing a pretty good job, in most cases better than our parents did.
I use the term 'ban' because that is precisely what the state-level constitutional amendments do. Not only do they ban same-sex marriage, they violate the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. Maggie Gallagher put out a messaging piece where she told anti-gay activists to never use the phrase 'ban same-sex marriage' but instead to say 'protect traditional marriage'. I don't see those as equivalent. State constitutional amendments do ban same-sex marriage. To say otherwise is to bear false witness. They don't 'protect traditional marriage' - read the 31 or so statutes and see for yourself.
Regarding the male-male studies. Whether or not they were valid studies of the selected populations, they don't address *my* population. My population is a single family with nearly thirty years of love and fidelity. If you wanted to place my family in a study group, it would be of Jewish families who love and accept their GLBT children and support their families. Whereas the overall divorce rate is around 50%, the divorce rate is about 20% among Jewish families. The same statistic is probably true of both same-sex and other sex relationships within that population.
I'll grant you that the studies you cite may have been peer reviewed. I believe that the populations studied are not representative, certainly not with respect to the populations in my rather conservative circle. Many of the families in that circle are raising children or have adult children - yes, many of use are empty nesters. It's pretty difficult to convince us to abandon our families when we *are* families with long and successful track records. We *are* doing a pretty good job, in most cases better than our parents did.
10.31.2011 | 9:57pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you so much, Jason, for your thoughtful post. I am encouraged when I see people truly trying to seek the truth on this matter.
I have some problems with your logic and so if you will please bear with me, I will explain in three points as follows:
1. Your point 1 is not correct in two ways. First, it commits the logical fallacy of generalizing to the entire male homosexual community from your own personal monogamous behavior. You seem to be advocating for homosexual marriage in general because you and your partner are monogamous. Of course, you cannot advocate for homosexual marriage in general because of your behavior in particular. Second, you say, "Because of point 1, we cannot hold the entire group responsible for the infidelities of some of their members." Here you are missing the point about statistical averages. On the average, homosexual men are not monogamous. On the average heterosexual married couples are monogamous. The homosexual male group is characterized, on the average, as non-monogamous and this is a statistical fact.
Thus, your point 1 does not hold in either of the two cases for which you argue.
And by the way, you focus on my use of the one book, After the Ball, as if this is my only source. Please refer to my earlier posts in which I cite scientific articles which make the exact same point as in that book. In other words, I am not being reductionistic in my choice of sources.
2. Your point 2 has a hidden premise that monogamy is the key to marriage. I do not think that you would get many people to agree with that. The key to marriage has always been the raising of children in the context of mutual self-giving. To raise a child in the best way possible, the parents need to be a mother and a father. Again, I say this not out of faith or belief but instead out of a familiarity with the scientific literature showing that the deprivation of a mother or of a father has grave consequences on the average for children (again, there are exceptions, but exceptions do not make the rule). The science is strong on this point.
Thus, your point 2 does not hold in that you are assuming monogamy as the central point of marriage, which has never been the case from an historical perspective. Please do not misunderstand me. Monogamy is important, but as a means to the end of raising children well. Monogamy is not the end point as you seem to be suggesting, but a means to an end.
3. In your point 3, you insist that religion be removed from the discussion. Please read each of my posts here. I have never once used religion to make even one point. Thus, I cannot be accused of arbitrary statements. All of my statements are based on logic or science or both.
As a final point, you suggest in point 2 that if gays are allowed to marry then they will become more monogamous. This is an assumption that will need to be defended. I would argue just the opposite----that if marriage was legalized for gays, they would then ask this question, "Why should marriage be about monogamy if the two consenting adults desire outside sexual activity?" You see, this question alters the very nature of marriage itself. Is my speculation about the future far-fetched? See After the Ball again. The call in that book is not for gays to become like heterosexual married people. Instead, the call is for marriage to be altered to accommodate the current gay lifestyle. And I choose this book to discuss because it has emerged as a manual of change for gays. Gays have chosen it, not I.
Do you think that children will fare better or worse in this scenario? We both know the answer---partner instability and infidelity is not in the child's best interest.
Jason, I say all of this out of charity, not malice. I do not know you, but you seem to have a good heart. If children are best served with a mother and a father (and the science gives an unambiguous "yes" to this) is your good heart willing to give up on this issue of marriage within the gay community for the good of many children across many generations?
I have some problems with your logic and so if you will please bear with me, I will explain in three points as follows:
1. Your point 1 is not correct in two ways. First, it commits the logical fallacy of generalizing to the entire male homosexual community from your own personal monogamous behavior. You seem to be advocating for homosexual marriage in general because you and your partner are monogamous. Of course, you cannot advocate for homosexual marriage in general because of your behavior in particular. Second, you say, "Because of point 1, we cannot hold the entire group responsible for the infidelities of some of their members." Here you are missing the point about statistical averages. On the average, homosexual men are not monogamous. On the average heterosexual married couples are monogamous. The homosexual male group is characterized, on the average, as non-monogamous and this is a statistical fact.
Thus, your point 1 does not hold in either of the two cases for which you argue.
And by the way, you focus on my use of the one book, After the Ball, as if this is my only source. Please refer to my earlier posts in which I cite scientific articles which make the exact same point as in that book. In other words, I am not being reductionistic in my choice of sources.
2. Your point 2 has a hidden premise that monogamy is the key to marriage. I do not think that you would get many people to agree with that. The key to marriage has always been the raising of children in the context of mutual self-giving. To raise a child in the best way possible, the parents need to be a mother and a father. Again, I say this not out of faith or belief but instead out of a familiarity with the scientific literature showing that the deprivation of a mother or of a father has grave consequences on the average for children (again, there are exceptions, but exceptions do not make the rule). The science is strong on this point.
Thus, your point 2 does not hold in that you are assuming monogamy as the central point of marriage, which has never been the case from an historical perspective. Please do not misunderstand me. Monogamy is important, but as a means to the end of raising children well. Monogamy is not the end point as you seem to be suggesting, but a means to an end.
3. In your point 3, you insist that religion be removed from the discussion. Please read each of my posts here. I have never once used religion to make even one point. Thus, I cannot be accused of arbitrary statements. All of my statements are based on logic or science or both.
As a final point, you suggest in point 2 that if gays are allowed to marry then they will become more monogamous. This is an assumption that will need to be defended. I would argue just the opposite----that if marriage was legalized for gays, they would then ask this question, "Why should marriage be about monogamy if the two consenting adults desire outside sexual activity?" You see, this question alters the very nature of marriage itself. Is my speculation about the future far-fetched? See After the Ball again. The call in that book is not for gays to become like heterosexual married people. Instead, the call is for marriage to be altered to accommodate the current gay lifestyle. And I choose this book to discuss because it has emerged as a manual of change for gays. Gays have chosen it, not I.
Do you think that children will fare better or worse in this scenario? We both know the answer---partner instability and infidelity is not in the child's best interest.
Jason, I say all of this out of charity, not malice. I do not know you, but you seem to have a good heart. If children are best served with a mother and a father (and the science gives an unambiguous "yes" to this) is your good heart willing to give up on this issue of marriage within the gay community for the good of many children across many generations?
11.1.2011 | 4:29am
Michael PS says:
I certainly agree with Rick Fitzgibbons MD that fidelity, in the sense of sexual exclusivity, makes little sense in intrinsically infertile relationships. In marriage, it is obviously the necessary counterpart to the presumption of paternity.
It is worth noting that the parties to a PACS (civil union) owe n duty of fidelity; jurisprudence has created an obligation of "loyalty," but this is not a t all the same thing
It is worth noting that the parties to a PACS (civil union) owe n duty of fidelity; jurisprudence has created an obligation of "loyalty," but this is not a t all the same thing
11.1.2011 | 8:02am
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jonathan. You are a bright and caring person. I truly appreciate your challenges because they ask me to think very deeply about this problem that will indeed affect children.
Let us continue with this issue of "banning." I think you are confusing intentions and consequences. You seem to be suggesting that my intent is to ban certain people from certain things. This casts me in the role of villain, a label that I will not accept. My intention is the protection of children. That gays are then banned from marriage is not my intention and it is a consequence that logically follows from the intent to protect children.
You know as well as I that the family portrait you paint is extreme in the homosexual community. Thirty years of faithful commitment is way outside average or normative behavior in that community. I say this with no prejudicial intention whatsoever. I am stating a fact from the scientific results. I am not responsible for this discovered outcome, but you must admit that the gay community is responsible for this conclusion. And the conclusion of a lack of fidelity and stability is not in any child's best interest.
Regarding your critique of the science, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the studies are not valid (because they are not representative) and at the same time cling to the belief (yes, a belief, not a firm scientific conclusion) that the studies showing no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents are valid. In fact, the studies showing negative parenting effects for the homosexual community are better constructed with larger samples than the vast majority of studies cited by homosexual advocates in support of their views. The science is not on your side, if you look at it objectively.
Even if you are doing a good job, we must face a hard fact: The homosexual male community to date, on the average, has not embraced monogamy. This on the average is not in the best interests of children. All cultures of the world recognize the needs of children for maternal nurturance and social science documents the serious harm to children from maternal deprivation.
Let us continue with this issue of "banning." I think you are confusing intentions and consequences. You seem to be suggesting that my intent is to ban certain people from certain things. This casts me in the role of villain, a label that I will not accept. My intention is the protection of children. That gays are then banned from marriage is not my intention and it is a consequence that logically follows from the intent to protect children.
You know as well as I that the family portrait you paint is extreme in the homosexual community. Thirty years of faithful commitment is way outside average or normative behavior in that community. I say this with no prejudicial intention whatsoever. I am stating a fact from the scientific results. I am not responsible for this discovered outcome, but you must admit that the gay community is responsible for this conclusion. And the conclusion of a lack of fidelity and stability is not in any child's best interest.
Regarding your critique of the science, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the studies are not valid (because they are not representative) and at the same time cling to the belief (yes, a belief, not a firm scientific conclusion) that the studies showing no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents are valid. In fact, the studies showing negative parenting effects for the homosexual community are better constructed with larger samples than the vast majority of studies cited by homosexual advocates in support of their views. The science is not on your side, if you look at it objectively.
Even if you are doing a good job, we must face a hard fact: The homosexual male community to date, on the average, has not embraced monogamy. This on the average is not in the best interests of children. All cultures of the world recognize the needs of children for maternal nurturance and social science documents the serious harm to children from maternal deprivation.
11.1.2011 | 9:03am
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Thanks of everybody who participated in this discussion. When my first comment went into moderation for a long time, I sent a note to the moderator and asked if he was willing to give voice to marriage conservatives, and he did. Through the course of the discussion, it became clear that the most serious "mounting doubts" are within the anti-gay-marriage voices. They are fine talking to the storybook radical gays of "After the Ball", which I never read and never will. They have nothing to say to real-life same sex couples other than - "What about the storybook children?"
The children are doing fine. God doesn't give them burdens they cannot handle, and it isn't clear whether or not having same-sex parents is a burden. Children of same-sex parents are released from the sexism that may be passed on from generation to generation among traditions that believe the wife is to obey the husband. That is the most liberating of all sexual liberations and, my friend Nancy D., it has nothing to do with "sexual acts".
To Nancy D., I've run into many people who have done the same thing as you. I refer to it as "going potty mouth". If you're willing to talk that way to me, I can only imagine the horrible things you've said to your daughter. Please get counseling. Find a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) contact, or an open and affirming church and get some help.
Dr. Fitzgibbons, if a patient comes to you with an injury, do you ask them to "study the science" before you treat them? Maybe they were injured in a dunk driving accident, and chances are, they are going to get behind the wheel again and kill somebody. I sort of think that a doctor would just treat the patient. Are you wiling to do that? There are millions of same-sex headed families with children. You can't ask them to break up "for the children". Your request is inhuman and ghastly. Not only should you help them gain equality under the law, you should go out into your churches and communities and fight for their equality. There are many people and institutions that are doing their best to maintain their anti-gay bias, but there are mounting doubts about whether they can maintain the fight.
The children are doing fine. God doesn't give them burdens they cannot handle, and it isn't clear whether or not having same-sex parents is a burden. Children of same-sex parents are released from the sexism that may be passed on from generation to generation among traditions that believe the wife is to obey the husband. That is the most liberating of all sexual liberations and, my friend Nancy D., it has nothing to do with "sexual acts".
To Nancy D., I've run into many people who have done the same thing as you. I refer to it as "going potty mouth". If you're willing to talk that way to me, I can only imagine the horrible things you've said to your daughter. Please get counseling. Find a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) contact, or an open and affirming church and get some help.
Dr. Fitzgibbons, if a patient comes to you with an injury, do you ask them to "study the science" before you treat them? Maybe they were injured in a dunk driving accident, and chances are, they are going to get behind the wheel again and kill somebody. I sort of think that a doctor would just treat the patient. Are you wiling to do that? There are millions of same-sex headed families with children. You can't ask them to break up "for the children". Your request is inhuman and ghastly. Not only should you help them gain equality under the law, you should go out into your churches and communities and fight for their equality. There are many people and institutions that are doing their best to maintain their anti-gay bias, but there are mounting doubts about whether they can maintain the fight.
11.1.2011 | 3:36pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your recent post. I sense a deep frustration in you. I say this because your most recent post degenerated into name-calling.
In just one post you use the following words: "anti," "sexism" (to refer to traditional views of gender), "horrible things," "inhumane," "ghastly." Ad hominem arguments are the last defense of the desperate. I say this to you, Jonathan, just in case you wish to get back on track and address my arguments. I am here ready to receive your answers as long as they pertain to the discussion.
You ask if I treat patients by asking them to "study the science." Your analogy between our discussions here and my treating patients is not a strong analogy because you and I are discussing an alteration of states' policies, not individual medical healing. I think your strained analogy is a diversion so that you will not have to look squarely at the science. Would anyone ignore scientific findings, where they exist, when trying to change laws that have been in existence for millenia across cultures? Again, I am sensing a desperation because you refuse to engage even a little regarding the scientific findings that I have put on the table for civil discussion.
In your last sentence of the post, you accuse me of anti-gay bias. I ask you for fairness. Not once have I twisted the research to be persuasive. Not once have I called you names. Not once have I engaged in rhetorical moves that a logician would find objectionable. I have stood in the truth of scientific findings and have argued as best I can in a valid way. The conclusions are not favorable for you.
Finally, I wish to point out to other readers one more rhetorical move that you and others have made in these posts. You (and others) try to discourage those of us who disagree with you. More specifically, you end by saying that I and others cannot "maintain the fight." I again ask you: If I speak falsely, where have I done that? If I have spoken the truth to you, then why strike me with such words as "inhumane" and "ghastly"? Surely you are aware that as I and others stand without malice and in the truth, we will never give up for your sake. Yes, Jonathan, for your sake. Standing in the truth is in your best interest as well as mine and the children who need the protection and nurturance of a father and a mother.
In just one post you use the following words: "anti," "sexism" (to refer to traditional views of gender), "horrible things," "inhumane," "ghastly." Ad hominem arguments are the last defense of the desperate. I say this to you, Jonathan, just in case you wish to get back on track and address my arguments. I am here ready to receive your answers as long as they pertain to the discussion.
You ask if I treat patients by asking them to "study the science." Your analogy between our discussions here and my treating patients is not a strong analogy because you and I are discussing an alteration of states' policies, not individual medical healing. I think your strained analogy is a diversion so that you will not have to look squarely at the science. Would anyone ignore scientific findings, where they exist, when trying to change laws that have been in existence for millenia across cultures? Again, I am sensing a desperation because you refuse to engage even a little regarding the scientific findings that I have put on the table for civil discussion.
In your last sentence of the post, you accuse me of anti-gay bias. I ask you for fairness. Not once have I twisted the research to be persuasive. Not once have I called you names. Not once have I engaged in rhetorical moves that a logician would find objectionable. I have stood in the truth of scientific findings and have argued as best I can in a valid way. The conclusions are not favorable for you.
Finally, I wish to point out to other readers one more rhetorical move that you and others have made in these posts. You (and others) try to discourage those of us who disagree with you. More specifically, you end by saying that I and others cannot "maintain the fight." I again ask you: If I speak falsely, where have I done that? If I have spoken the truth to you, then why strike me with such words as "inhumane" and "ghastly"? Surely you are aware that as I and others stand without malice and in the truth, we will never give up for your sake. Yes, Jonathan, for your sake. Standing in the truth is in your best interest as well as mine and the children who need the protection and nurturance of a father and a mother.
11.1.2011 | 4:41pm
Jason says:
Rick,
The issue I have with your position, fundamentally, is that you presume that marriage is about children. What about couples that are unable to conceive? What about seniors who are past the age to be able to have children? What about couples who choose, for whatever reason, to not have children? Aren't you effectively arguing that they should not be allowed to marry for the same reasons? And as for my earlier post, in point 1 I was not stating that all gays should be allowed to marry because my partner and I are faithful, I was arguing that those gay and lesbian couples who are faithful should not be denied marriage on the infidelities of others. The law should never hold one individual responsible for the actions of others.
Also, I rather suspect that the gays and lesbians who wish to marry are the ones who AREN'T unfaithful or have extra-"marital" sexual relations. Perhaps I am putting more weight on the sanctity of marriage than you are, but it seems to me that marriage is the ultimate act of committment between two people, and anyone who enjoys a lifestyle of sleeping with anyone and everyone would find marriage to be an anathema.
Ultimately, I seek legal protections for my family. Whether you, your moral compass, your faith, or your vision for our society's future agrees with me, I will never stop seeking those legal protections. My family is every bit as important to me as yours no doubt is to you, but because of the highly discriminatory laws in place we are forced to pay higher taxes, we have virtually no medical authority over each other, if one of us dies the other has to pay huge taxes on the estate because we are not related under the law... the list of problems is unfathomable. Ultimately, I don't care who believes we are married and who does not, the only opinons that matter are mine and his and I know we are married. The trouble is, when YOU marry, the government gives you a huge basket of free gifts in the form of legal protections, tax breaks, etc. When we marry, the government only acknowledges that we're roomates. That is not fair or just, and that is why I fight for the right to marry. And that is why you MUST be wrong in your viewpoint, because your family is no more real or valid than my own.
The issue I have with your position, fundamentally, is that you presume that marriage is about children. What about couples that are unable to conceive? What about seniors who are past the age to be able to have children? What about couples who choose, for whatever reason, to not have children? Aren't you effectively arguing that they should not be allowed to marry for the same reasons? And as for my earlier post, in point 1 I was not stating that all gays should be allowed to marry because my partner and I are faithful, I was arguing that those gay and lesbian couples who are faithful should not be denied marriage on the infidelities of others. The law should never hold one individual responsible for the actions of others.
Also, I rather suspect that the gays and lesbians who wish to marry are the ones who AREN'T unfaithful or have extra-"marital" sexual relations. Perhaps I am putting more weight on the sanctity of marriage than you are, but it seems to me that marriage is the ultimate act of committment between two people, and anyone who enjoys a lifestyle of sleeping with anyone and everyone would find marriage to be an anathema.
Ultimately, I seek legal protections for my family. Whether you, your moral compass, your faith, or your vision for our society's future agrees with me, I will never stop seeking those legal protections. My family is every bit as important to me as yours no doubt is to you, but because of the highly discriminatory laws in place we are forced to pay higher taxes, we have virtually no medical authority over each other, if one of us dies the other has to pay huge taxes on the estate because we are not related under the law... the list of problems is unfathomable. Ultimately, I don't care who believes we are married and who does not, the only opinons that matter are mine and his and I know we are married. The trouble is, when YOU marry, the government gives you a huge basket of free gifts in the form of legal protections, tax breaks, etc. When we marry, the government only acknowledges that we're roomates. That is not fair or just, and that is why I fight for the right to marry. And that is why you MUST be wrong in your viewpoint, because your family is no more real or valid than my own.
11.1.2011 | 5:34pm
Brian English says:
"My family is every bit as important to me as yours no doubt is to you, but because of the highly discriminatory laws in place we are forced to pay higher taxes,"
How much higher? Do you think unmarried heterosexual couples care less about their families?
"we have virtually no medical authority over each other?"
Do you know what a power of attorney is? What about a living will?
"if one of us dies the other has to pay huge taxes on the estate because we are not related under the law"
Do you know what a will is?
"... the list of problems is unfathomable."
Your list of problems is highly exaggerated, and all of the problems you list above are willingly accepted by many heterosexual couples.
But here is the real issue: If the state you lived in had a civil union statute that provided the same benefits as those enjoyed by a married couple, would that be acceptable to you?
How much higher? Do you think unmarried heterosexual couples care less about their families?
"we have virtually no medical authority over each other?"
Do you know what a power of attorney is? What about a living will?
"if one of us dies the other has to pay huge taxes on the estate because we are not related under the law"
Do you know what a will is?
"... the list of problems is unfathomable."
Your list of problems is highly exaggerated, and all of the problems you list above are willingly accepted by many heterosexual couples.
But here is the real issue: If the state you lived in had a civil union statute that provided the same benefits as those enjoyed by a married couple, would that be acceptable to you?
11.1.2011 | 9:48pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Jason, I thank you for continuing the dialogue. You are articulate and polite. I also thank you for allowing me to further clarify my position.
You raise a number of important points. In the first point, you state that by my reasoning, only fertile men and women should be allowed to marry if marriage is fundamentally about children. I am sure you are aware that there is a huge difference between the capacity to bring forth children on the average and the absolute ability to do so in particular circumstances. I, of course, as all others who advocate marriage between one man and one woman focus on the issue of capacity: men and women on the average have the capacity to bring forth children. That some man-woman couples cannot is beside the point because, as a group, one man and one woman by their very nature have this capacity even though in particular cases this is not possible. We are talking about the group as a whole: one-man-and-one-woman group. Those who cannot bring forth children do not constitute the average for this group.
The group of homosexual men does not have this capacity nor does it have the particularity of this happening. There is not even one particular instance in which this is or could be the case.
Thus, you focus, not on the issue of bringing forth children as central to marriage, but instead on fidelity as the central theme to the married state. Do you see how abstract your claim on marriage is? Fidelity by itself can be extended in any number of directions: three men and one woman, for example. I know you would not advocate the following, but what if two 13-year-old boys have sound reasoning and decide that they are faithful with a 25-year-old man? Is it not age discrimination to prevent this if all three vow fidelity? What would be your basis for denying this, or denying polygamy if all are faithful? Your claim of faithfulness as the central theme of marriage quickly degenerates into chaos, as I am sure you see.
If you say that fidelity must center on one man with one man, what is your basis for saying that? Pleasure and mutual support by themselves know no restrictive bounds. One-man-and-one-woman bonds must have bounds, for the sake of the children to be brought up.
In your first paragraph you say that faithful homosexual men should be allowed to marry. The statistics show, as you undoubtedly know, that the group as a whole, and self-admittedly, is not monogamous. Thus, by your criterion, the vast majority of homosexual men will not be allowed (and should not be allowed) to marry. Why then should you, as a self-identified member of this group, be allowed to marry and not the rest in the group to which you identify? To be consistent, should we not then open marriage to all gay men, even those who are not faithful to each other? If it is fair for you, and you are a self-identified member of this group, then the only fair answer is yes. And then we once again have chaos for the children who are exposed to the infidelity. Do you see how you cannot be selective on which gay couples are allowed to marry? Either all are allowed or none are. Your logic suggests all and therefore the children are at risk for being raised in a non-monogamous environment on the average. You argument does not work, Jason.
We already have discussed the points within your second paragraph in an earlier post. There are many homosexual men who want marriage and want freedom to be with other men in the marriage, thus redefining marriage itself.
For your points in the third paragraph, the United States need not get caught in an "either-or" trap: Either all homosexual males are allowed to marry and get benefits or all gays must not marry and must not have benefits. Would you be willing to consider having the economic benefits through an arrangement other than marriage? If not, why not, if the goal is benefits? These could be won by many avenues other than marriage and so the absolute link of marriage and benefits does not have to be there.
Thank you again, Jason, for your civility and your thoughtful ideas.
You raise a number of important points. In the first point, you state that by my reasoning, only fertile men and women should be allowed to marry if marriage is fundamentally about children. I am sure you are aware that there is a huge difference between the capacity to bring forth children on the average and the absolute ability to do so in particular circumstances. I, of course, as all others who advocate marriage between one man and one woman focus on the issue of capacity: men and women on the average have the capacity to bring forth children. That some man-woman couples cannot is beside the point because, as a group, one man and one woman by their very nature have this capacity even though in particular cases this is not possible. We are talking about the group as a whole: one-man-and-one-woman group. Those who cannot bring forth children do not constitute the average for this group.
The group of homosexual men does not have this capacity nor does it have the particularity of this happening. There is not even one particular instance in which this is or could be the case.
Thus, you focus, not on the issue of bringing forth children as central to marriage, but instead on fidelity as the central theme to the married state. Do you see how abstract your claim on marriage is? Fidelity by itself can be extended in any number of directions: three men and one woman, for example. I know you would not advocate the following, but what if two 13-year-old boys have sound reasoning and decide that they are faithful with a 25-year-old man? Is it not age discrimination to prevent this if all three vow fidelity? What would be your basis for denying this, or denying polygamy if all are faithful? Your claim of faithfulness as the central theme of marriage quickly degenerates into chaos, as I am sure you see.
If you say that fidelity must center on one man with one man, what is your basis for saying that? Pleasure and mutual support by themselves know no restrictive bounds. One-man-and-one-woman bonds must have bounds, for the sake of the children to be brought up.
In your first paragraph you say that faithful homosexual men should be allowed to marry. The statistics show, as you undoubtedly know, that the group as a whole, and self-admittedly, is not monogamous. Thus, by your criterion, the vast majority of homosexual men will not be allowed (and should not be allowed) to marry. Why then should you, as a self-identified member of this group, be allowed to marry and not the rest in the group to which you identify? To be consistent, should we not then open marriage to all gay men, even those who are not faithful to each other? If it is fair for you, and you are a self-identified member of this group, then the only fair answer is yes. And then we once again have chaos for the children who are exposed to the infidelity. Do you see how you cannot be selective on which gay couples are allowed to marry? Either all are allowed or none are. Your logic suggests all and therefore the children are at risk for being raised in a non-monogamous environment on the average. You argument does not work, Jason.
We already have discussed the points within your second paragraph in an earlier post. There are many homosexual men who want marriage and want freedom to be with other men in the marriage, thus redefining marriage itself.
For your points in the third paragraph, the United States need not get caught in an "either-or" trap: Either all homosexual males are allowed to marry and get benefits or all gays must not marry and must not have benefits. Would you be willing to consider having the economic benefits through an arrangement other than marriage? If not, why not, if the goal is benefits? These could be won by many avenues other than marriage and so the absolute link of marriage and benefits does not have to be there.
Thank you again, Jason, for your civility and your thoughtful ideas.
11.1.2011 | 11:59pm
Jason says:
To address some of your questions (in no particular order, you must forgive me as it's late here):
You're sort of making one of my points for me, when you said "either all are allowed, or none are". That has been the case with heterosexual marriage all along, all are allowed. Even if the two people in a heterosexual relationship are "swingers" with no intention of being monogamous, they are not barred from marriage. All must be allowed to marry. If it's that way for heterosexuals, why shouldn't the exact same standard apply to homosexual couples? And infidelity between married gay men (or lesbians) is not redefining marriage, as there is already rampant infidelity in heterosexual marriages. Unless you are claiming that all heterosexuals are 100% monogamous and the idea of the non-monogamous relationship is exclusive to gay people, then there is absolutely no redefining happening at all. Straight married people are faithful, straight married people cheat, straight married people give each other permission to step outside their marriage, and who knows how many other combinations of factors there are. So how would allowing gays to legally wed have any bearing on the definition of marriage, whether tye stray or remain faithful? That line was already crossed by heterosexual marriages.
And honestly, while I do find it vaguely insulting to think that I can be extended benefits by my government as long as we put those benefits under another name to mollify the squeamish, frankly I will accept legal protections for my relationship any way I can get them. To address Brian's point in response to my post, there are over one thousand benefits provided by the federal government to married heterosexual couples. No amount of legal wrangling will ever provide me all of those benefits. I already have a living will in place, I already have durable power of attorney over my partner (and vice versa). Nothing we do will allow us to file our taxes jointly, so we will always pay the much higher single rate. And any funds I were to leave my partner, any property, etc. would be taxed by the government because he is not legally considered my family. So after I die, he must suffer the indignity of losing much of my estate to the government. That's not to mention Social Security benefits that we cannot draw from each other, property ownership, nor all the legal pitfalls we must constantly navigate. I am only addressing his point because it seems relevant to our discussion.
As for your first point that you made in your post, Rick, I guess the problem I'm having with that is that laws shouldn't be made based on an average, because laws should never, ever be made to cater to the majority. The majority isn't always right. Women and blacks never would have been given the right to vote if it had been up to the majority. So basing marriage law on whether the majority of a group is capable of childbirth or whether the majority of a group would cheat on their spouse doesn't seem valid to me.
I do want to close this post by saying that, while you and I fundamentally disagree, I respect you a great deal for arguing your point so civilly. It's a rare person who can discuss such a touchy issue so rationally, and I genuinely appreciate that. I do feel that your position is the wrong one and that ultimately I will have the legal right to marry my partner, but even if (hopefully when) that happens, I will never insist that any individual ever respect that relationship.
I am a very, very strong proponent that people are free to believe anything they want, and while *I* feel your position is the wrong one, that doesn't mean I'm automatically right. For all I know, there's some wrathful God out there who is going to condemn me for an eternity in hellfire for falling in love with someone who was born with a penis and not a vagina. Do I believe that? In my heart, no. I believe myself to be a good person with a strong sense of right and wrong, and I know that my relationship is in no way wrong nor harmful to society. But I would never presume to force you or anyone else to agree with me. I can only argue my case and hope that justice wins out in the end. And, while we may be on opposite sides of the issue, I'm sure you hope for the same result, that justice wins out. We can all only do what we feel is right and hope for the best. It's all just a matter of perspective. So, in that light, I have a great deal of respect for you and I wish you only good things.
You're sort of making one of my points for me, when you said "either all are allowed, or none are". That has been the case with heterosexual marriage all along, all are allowed. Even if the two people in a heterosexual relationship are "swingers" with no intention of being monogamous, they are not barred from marriage. All must be allowed to marry. If it's that way for heterosexuals, why shouldn't the exact same standard apply to homosexual couples? And infidelity between married gay men (or lesbians) is not redefining marriage, as there is already rampant infidelity in heterosexual marriages. Unless you are claiming that all heterosexuals are 100% monogamous and the idea of the non-monogamous relationship is exclusive to gay people, then there is absolutely no redefining happening at all. Straight married people are faithful, straight married people cheat, straight married people give each other permission to step outside their marriage, and who knows how many other combinations of factors there are. So how would allowing gays to legally wed have any bearing on the definition of marriage, whether tye stray or remain faithful? That line was already crossed by heterosexual marriages.
And honestly, while I do find it vaguely insulting to think that I can be extended benefits by my government as long as we put those benefits under another name to mollify the squeamish, frankly I will accept legal protections for my relationship any way I can get them. To address Brian's point in response to my post, there are over one thousand benefits provided by the federal government to married heterosexual couples. No amount of legal wrangling will ever provide me all of those benefits. I already have a living will in place, I already have durable power of attorney over my partner (and vice versa). Nothing we do will allow us to file our taxes jointly, so we will always pay the much higher single rate. And any funds I were to leave my partner, any property, etc. would be taxed by the government because he is not legally considered my family. So after I die, he must suffer the indignity of losing much of my estate to the government. That's not to mention Social Security benefits that we cannot draw from each other, property ownership, nor all the legal pitfalls we must constantly navigate. I am only addressing his point because it seems relevant to our discussion.
As for your first point that you made in your post, Rick, I guess the problem I'm having with that is that laws shouldn't be made based on an average, because laws should never, ever be made to cater to the majority. The majority isn't always right. Women and blacks never would have been given the right to vote if it had been up to the majority. So basing marriage law on whether the majority of a group is capable of childbirth or whether the majority of a group would cheat on their spouse doesn't seem valid to me.
I do want to close this post by saying that, while you and I fundamentally disagree, I respect you a great deal for arguing your point so civilly. It's a rare person who can discuss such a touchy issue so rationally, and I genuinely appreciate that. I do feel that your position is the wrong one and that ultimately I will have the legal right to marry my partner, but even if (hopefully when) that happens, I will never insist that any individual ever respect that relationship.
I am a very, very strong proponent that people are free to believe anything they want, and while *I* feel your position is the wrong one, that doesn't mean I'm automatically right. For all I know, there's some wrathful God out there who is going to condemn me for an eternity in hellfire for falling in love with someone who was born with a penis and not a vagina. Do I believe that? In my heart, no. I believe myself to be a good person with a strong sense of right and wrong, and I know that my relationship is in no way wrong nor harmful to society. But I would never presume to force you or anyone else to agree with me. I can only argue my case and hope that justice wins out in the end. And, while we may be on opposite sides of the issue, I'm sure you hope for the same result, that justice wins out. We can all only do what we feel is right and hope for the best. It's all just a matter of perspective. So, in that light, I have a great deal of respect for you and I wish you only good things.
11.2.2011 | 10:31am
Brian English says:
It really is not a question of mollifying the squeamish. It is simply refusing to call something what it is not. I can understand your desire to
"To address Brian's point in response to my post, there are over one thousand benefits provided by the federal government to married heterosexual couples. No amount of legal wrangling will ever provide me all of those benefits."
But what are these benefits and why are so many heterosexual couples willing to forego them? If you are going to claim to be the modern equivalent of people who had police dogs and fire hoses turned on them because they objected to being murdered or brutalized for trying to vote, you are going to have to do better than being deprived of the right to file join tax returns.
"To address Brian's point in response to my post, there are over one thousand benefits provided by the federal government to married heterosexual couples. No amount of legal wrangling will ever provide me all of those benefits."
But what are these benefits and why are so many heterosexual couples willing to forego them? If you are going to claim to be the modern equivalent of people who had police dogs and fire hoses turned on them because they objected to being murdered or brutalized for trying to vote, you are going to have to do better than being deprived of the right to file join tax returns.
11.2.2011 | 3:04pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Jason, our dialogue truly is civil and respectful. Thank you for recognizing that. We surely share in common this moment of civility together and for that I am thankful.
As you would expect, I have an argument that I hope you will consider. It centers on the "all or none" issue regarding men marrying men. I am making a statistical case and you, instead, are arguing on a case-by-case basis. Here is what I mean: If man-man relationships tend to be----tend to be across time and subculture---such that the behavior is not in the best interest of children, then all of us, even you, Jason, have to pause and not affirm such a marriage. When I use the term "tend" and "average" I am not using these in a political sense ("the majority rules") but instead in a statistical sense (which captures the essence of man-man behavior). The tendencies, the averages within man-man relationships, do not favor placing children in those relationships. In fact---in fact, I am talking about the science here and not my view or my feelings or my perspective---the science shows, and has shown since the 1970's, that gay men on the average are not faithful to their partners. You cannot make this same claim with heterosexual couples, but instead must fall back to the non-scientific position that some are unfaithful. This latter statement does not describe the essence of man-woman relationships, but it does describe the essence of the man-man relationship. This is one of the key issues in this debate and I do not think you have a good answer to date for this scientific position.
As a second point, did you notice that you did not once discuss children in your most recent and lengthy post? To me this is telling. Yes, this is just one person (you) and so I am not making a scientific claim here. I am pointing out two things: 1) that your comments exclude children and 2) that the scientific studies show clearly that man-man relationships are not focused on the children (because if they were, the rate of fidelity would be much higher on the average in the homosexual group as a way to protect children). This may be a central reason why in every state that has had a vote on the issue, the homosexual call to marry and to raise children has been defeated, over and over again. The man-man relationship cannot provide, even in one single instance, the nurturance of a mother. I can anticipate your rebuttal: Yes, but some heterosexual households do not have mothers. My rejoinder is this: Yes, you are right, but that is the exception, not the rule. It is the rule without exception in the homosexual community and for that reason, I ask you to honestly consider my view and I challenge you to change your view if it is not as strong as this.
Thank you, Jason.
As you would expect, I have an argument that I hope you will consider. It centers on the "all or none" issue regarding men marrying men. I am making a statistical case and you, instead, are arguing on a case-by-case basis. Here is what I mean: If man-man relationships tend to be----tend to be across time and subculture---such that the behavior is not in the best interest of children, then all of us, even you, Jason, have to pause and not affirm such a marriage. When I use the term "tend" and "average" I am not using these in a political sense ("the majority rules") but instead in a statistical sense (which captures the essence of man-man behavior). The tendencies, the averages within man-man relationships, do not favor placing children in those relationships. In fact---in fact, I am talking about the science here and not my view or my feelings or my perspective---the science shows, and has shown since the 1970's, that gay men on the average are not faithful to their partners. You cannot make this same claim with heterosexual couples, but instead must fall back to the non-scientific position that some are unfaithful. This latter statement does not describe the essence of man-woman relationships, but it does describe the essence of the man-man relationship. This is one of the key issues in this debate and I do not think you have a good answer to date for this scientific position.
As a second point, did you notice that you did not once discuss children in your most recent and lengthy post? To me this is telling. Yes, this is just one person (you) and so I am not making a scientific claim here. I am pointing out two things: 1) that your comments exclude children and 2) that the scientific studies show clearly that man-man relationships are not focused on the children (because if they were, the rate of fidelity would be much higher on the average in the homosexual group as a way to protect children). This may be a central reason why in every state that has had a vote on the issue, the homosexual call to marry and to raise children has been defeated, over and over again. The man-man relationship cannot provide, even in one single instance, the nurturance of a mother. I can anticipate your rebuttal: Yes, but some heterosexual households do not have mothers. My rejoinder is this: Yes, you are right, but that is the exception, not the rule. It is the rule without exception in the homosexual community and for that reason, I ask you to honestly consider my view and I challenge you to change your view if it is not as strong as this.
Thank you, Jason.
11.2.2011 | 4:02pm
Jason says:
When did I say anything about police dogs and fire hoses? Brian, I ask that you please don't put words in my mouth.
11.2.2011 | 5:30pm
Brian English says:
"When did I say anything about police dogs and fire hoses? Brian, I ask that you please don't put words in my mouth."
The gay rights movement is always claiming to be a continuation of the Civil Rights movement.
The gay rights movement is always claiming to be a continuation of the Civil Rights movement.
11.2.2011 | 6:14pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D.,
Regarding your questions. Please the following regarding your claim that my "most recent post degenerated into name-calling"
Actually, no. The term anti-gay is a scientific taxonomic term. It is used to classify attitudes. Wikipedia describes anti-LGBT or anti-gay bias as:
"Attitudes against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) or discrimination against LGBT people..."
When I used the term anti-gay, I was referring to the attitudes of Brian Raum and many of the commenters. Evidence of anti-gay attitudes include:
1. Use of the term "cross dresser"
2. Allusions to "handsome young men flirting with one another over sweets and alcohol."
3. References to "No more parades"
4. References to "sexual liberty"
5. The view that religious liberty does not apply to GLBT people
6. Focus on "marriage radicals"
7. references to "elimination of distinctions" between male and female
All of the above are from the author, but your reaction does bring up an interesting question. Why do you find this descriptive word to be name-calling? What is your definition of anti-gay?
As I said earlier, there are an estimated 2 million children being raised by same-sex parents, and you're taking the position that these families should do what? I don't want to put words in your mouth. What should they do? Wait for "the science" to tell them what? And while they are patiently waiting, what are they supposed to do?
Regarding your questions. Please the following regarding your claim that my "most recent post degenerated into name-calling"
Actually, no. The term anti-gay is a scientific taxonomic term. It is used to classify attitudes. Wikipedia describes anti-LGBT or anti-gay bias as:
"Attitudes against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) or discrimination against LGBT people..."
When I used the term anti-gay, I was referring to the attitudes of Brian Raum and many of the commenters. Evidence of anti-gay attitudes include:
1. Use of the term "cross dresser"
2. Allusions to "handsome young men flirting with one another over sweets and alcohol."
3. References to "No more parades"
4. References to "sexual liberty"
5. The view that religious liberty does not apply to GLBT people
6. Focus on "marriage radicals"
7. references to "elimination of distinctions" between male and female
All of the above are from the author, but your reaction does bring up an interesting question. Why do you find this descriptive word to be name-calling? What is your definition of anti-gay?
As I said earlier, there are an estimated 2 million children being raised by same-sex parents, and you're taking the position that these families should do what? I don't want to put words in your mouth. What should they do? Wait for "the science" to tell them what? And while they are patiently waiting, what are they supposed to do?
11.2.2011 | 8:31pm
Jason says:
Rick, the reason I didn't mention children is because I don't think that's truly the issue. Hypothetically, if I were to marry my partner legally and have that marriage acknowledged by the federal government, what bearing does that have on someone else's children? And, as you said, my partner and I are incapable of having children of our own. My marrying Nathan would have no effect on any child, anywhere. Other people's children would still have their mothers and fathers, and I cannot have children. So, to me, the point about children really is moot. If I were bound and determined to have children, I could run out and get some woman pregnant, whether I'm married or not. I have no interest in having children, and I daresay most of the "promiscuous" gays you've been talking about have no interest in children as well, as that would certainly limit their opportunities to go out and "party" with other people, so I truly cannot understand how it matters. In this culture, marriage is a legally binding contract between two adults, and frankly I cannot understand how the genitalia of the adults in question has any bearing on anything. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just think we're on two different pages about this issue. I DO want to understand your point, truly, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about this.
11.3.2011 | 2:13pm
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. says:
Thank you, Jonathan, for asking about my views again regarding your previous post. Did you notice that you centered here on only one of your words: "anti"? You failed to mention your other words: "sexism," "inhumane," and "ghastly." These are name-calling words, Jonathan, and I am simply pointing that out to you. To call me "anti" anything is to ascribe a negative statement that may not apply to me. In the case of homosexuals, I am not at all "anti" homosexual. If someone knocked you down on the street, I would be the first to your aid. To call me "inhuman" is, well, not a good choice of words because it demeans me, making me less than human. So, I ask you in fairness to own the words you have printed and please think about them and their implications, ok?
One more rhetorical move from the homosexual activist community needs to be pointed out to the readers. You never make a distinction between attitudes toward homosexuals as persons and attitudes toward certain requests from the homosexual community. Your hidden premise is that to oppose anything that you want is to oppose you as a person. The reader who is unable to think clearly then makes the mistake of thinking that there can be no challenges whatsoever to homosexuals' requests for, well, anything at all. I want to challenge you, Jonathan, to think more deeply than that and to de-couple my challenge to you regarding homosexuals marrying and the personhood of the homosexual. These are distinctly different and worthy of deep discussion.
One final point. You are assuming that the recent report on homosexual families is accurate when citing the figure of 2 million children being raised by homosexual parents. This is not a matter of belief, but of fact to be determined. Let us see what demographers, who are not politically involved in the activist homosexual community, have to say about that figure before we uncritically accept it.
Jason, Thank you again for your recent post on homosexual partnering and the raising of children. The one area you did not mention, and the most important one because it could be readily available if marriage laws are changed, is adoption. Any homosexual couple would be allowed by law to raise children. What we must scrutinize is this: Is the state acting in the child's best interest to deliberately deprive a child of both a mother and a father by this action? This question requires us to pause and to examine the scientific evidence of the best interests of the child. You will see that the evidence over decades overwhelmingly favors the environment of both a mother and a father raising the child. I can anticipate your response: But not all children have this, with divorce and abandonment. My rejoinder is this: Yes, but the child has a good chance (from a statistical viewpoint) of having both a mother and a father if marriage is defined at the union of one man and one woman. As you point out in your most recent post, the statistical chance of that in a homosexual partnership is 0 and will always be 0. This is one more reason for us to pause and reflect carefully on these facts. Thank you, again, Jason, for caring about the importance of civil dialogue. Take care.
One more rhetorical move from the homosexual activist community needs to be pointed out to the readers. You never make a distinction between attitudes toward homosexuals as persons and attitudes toward certain requests from the homosexual community. Your hidden premise is that to oppose anything that you want is to oppose you as a person. The reader who is unable to think clearly then makes the mistake of thinking that there can be no challenges whatsoever to homosexuals' requests for, well, anything at all. I want to challenge you, Jonathan, to think more deeply than that and to de-couple my challenge to you regarding homosexuals marrying and the personhood of the homosexual. These are distinctly different and worthy of deep discussion.
One final point. You are assuming that the recent report on homosexual families is accurate when citing the figure of 2 million children being raised by homosexual parents. This is not a matter of belief, but of fact to be determined. Let us see what demographers, who are not politically involved in the activist homosexual community, have to say about that figure before we uncritically accept it.
Jason, Thank you again for your recent post on homosexual partnering and the raising of children. The one area you did not mention, and the most important one because it could be readily available if marriage laws are changed, is adoption. Any homosexual couple would be allowed by law to raise children. What we must scrutinize is this: Is the state acting in the child's best interest to deliberately deprive a child of both a mother and a father by this action? This question requires us to pause and to examine the scientific evidence of the best interests of the child. You will see that the evidence over decades overwhelmingly favors the environment of both a mother and a father raising the child. I can anticipate your response: But not all children have this, with divorce and abandonment. My rejoinder is this: Yes, but the child has a good chance (from a statistical viewpoint) of having both a mother and a father if marriage is defined at the union of one man and one woman. As you point out in your most recent post, the statistical chance of that in a homosexual partnership is 0 and will always be 0. This is one more reason for us to pause and reflect carefully on these facts. Thank you, again, Jason, for caring about the importance of civil dialogue. Take care.
11.3.2011 | 11:05pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
"You are assuming that the recent report on homosexual families is accurate when citing the figure of 2 million children being raised by homosexual parents. This is not a matter of belief, but of fact to be determined. Let us see what demographers, who are not politically involved in the activist homosexual community, have to say about that figure before we uncritically accept it."
Does it matter? Does it matter if it's two million or one million of one hundred thousand or ten thousand or one thousand or one hundred or one? Does it matter? Does one child matter? Can one child be ignored because she's being raised by same gender parents?
Does it matter? Does it matter if it's two million or one million of one hundred thousand or ten thousand or one thousand or one hundred or one? Does it matter? Does one child matter? Can one child be ignored because she's being raised by same gender parents?
11.3.2011 | 11:41pm
Jason says:
Having been a foster child myself, I can only assure you that being adopted by a gay or lesbian couple would STILL be better than leaving children unwanted in the foster system. I don't necessarily agree or disagree that children are at a disadvantage raised by same-gender couples (I haven't read enough studies or reports to have formed an opinion, so I don't want to speak on something I know nothing about), but I can say with all certainty that it has GOT to be better than growing up in foster care. But even still, the issue isn't about gay adoption (which, again, I can't really discuss as I don't know enough about the issues at hand) but gay marriage. I don't campaign for or against same-sex adoption BECAUSE I'm not educated on the issue, and if it truly is in some way harmful to children then I would be against it on principle. But marriage rights and adoption rights, while in some ways related, are separate issues. And honestly, I don't care for "slippery slope" arguments that one will lead to the other. I would much prefer to stick to the issue at hand.
Just as a curiosity, if the issue of same-sex marriage was completely removed from the issue of adoption, would you still be opposed to the idea? I mean, assuming we can entirely eliminate children from the discussion (for example, a rider in the law that allows for marriage but prevents adoption), would you still be opposed?
To give you a bit of a better understanding of my personal beliefs on the issue, I believe that the government has no vested interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying provided that both partners are of legal age to be able to enter into contractual obligations. I do NOT believe that every religion should be required to perform, honor or recognize every marriage, I feel that people should be free to decide that for themselves. I don't believe that any individual has to respect my relationship with my partner, but I do believe that the law should. As I said before, I'm entirely neutral on the idea of adoption and will leave that up to the child psychologists and medical professionals to decide what effect it has, so I won't address that. I believe that secular, legal marriage should be an independent thing from religious marriage, and I believe that no one religion has the right to impose their religious views on anyone else nor dictate law based on those views. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan or whatever they happen to be and I know nothing about their religion other than the notion makes me inherently uncomfortable, so I certainly don't want their beliefs dictating the laws that apply to me, but likewise I don't feel that my views should determine what laws apply to them, and I think the same thing applies in this situation. It comes down to the two definitions of marriage, the spiritual/religious one and the secular/legal one. Frankly, I think that the two definitions should be separated entirely so that religions are free to institute their own vision of marriage and the government is free to acknowledge its version without the two necessarily treading on one another. I think that would solve many (most?) of the problems people have with same-sex marriage.
Just as a curiosity, if the issue of same-sex marriage was completely removed from the issue of adoption, would you still be opposed to the idea? I mean, assuming we can entirely eliminate children from the discussion (for example, a rider in the law that allows for marriage but prevents adoption), would you still be opposed?
To give you a bit of a better understanding of my personal beliefs on the issue, I believe that the government has no vested interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying provided that both partners are of legal age to be able to enter into contractual obligations. I do NOT believe that every religion should be required to perform, honor or recognize every marriage, I feel that people should be free to decide that for themselves. I don't believe that any individual has to respect my relationship with my partner, but I do believe that the law should. As I said before, I'm entirely neutral on the idea of adoption and will leave that up to the child psychologists and medical professionals to decide what effect it has, so I won't address that. I believe that secular, legal marriage should be an independent thing from religious marriage, and I believe that no one religion has the right to impose their religious views on anyone else nor dictate law based on those views. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan or whatever they happen to be and I know nothing about their religion other than the notion makes me inherently uncomfortable, so I certainly don't want their beliefs dictating the laws that apply to me, but likewise I don't feel that my views should determine what laws apply to them, and I think the same thing applies in this situation. It comes down to the two definitions of marriage, the spiritual/religious one and the secular/legal one. Frankly, I think that the two definitions should be separated entirely so that religions are free to institute their own vision of marriage and the government is free to acknowledge its version without the two necessarily treading on one another. I think that would solve many (most?) of the problems people have with same-sex marriage.
11.4.2011 | 12:02am
Jason says:
"The gay rights movement is always claiming to be a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. "
I am not the gay rights movement. I am an individual person and I don't generally let others speak for me, whether to my detriment or benefit. I do feel this is a civil rights issue, but I would never dare compare it to what many other groups have had to endure in our very checkered history as a nation. I don't feel my inability to marry my partner is fair, however it's on a totally different degree of unfair from, say, black children being forced to go to different schools, or women being unable to vote, or worse, slavery. So please, I ask you, just remember that you aren't arguing with some faceless "cause". I am an individual, and I don't like having others' words put into my mouth or held agaisnt me as if I were somehow responsible.
I am not the gay rights movement. I am an individual person and I don't generally let others speak for me, whether to my detriment or benefit. I do feel this is a civil rights issue, but I would never dare compare it to what many other groups have had to endure in our very checkered history as a nation. I don't feel my inability to marry my partner is fair, however it's on a totally different degree of unfair from, say, black children being forced to go to different schools, or women being unable to vote, or worse, slavery. So please, I ask you, just remember that you aren't arguing with some faceless "cause". I am an individual, and I don't like having others' words put into my mouth or held agaisnt me as if I were somehow responsible.
11.4.2011 | 1:39pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D.,
Regarding your statement:
"Let us see what demographers, who are not politically involved in the activist homosexual community,..."
The 2010 Census reported on same-sex households. The ADF published their numbers at the link below:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf
115 Thousand same-sex households reported children in the household.
It was also reported that Conservatives opposed the release of the figures.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/26/strength-in-numbers.html
Dr. Fitzgibbons and Brian Raum,
Can you speculate as to why conservatives would have opposed the release of this data?
Regarding your statement:
"Let us see what demographers, who are not politically involved in the activist homosexual community,..."
The 2010 Census reported on same-sex households. The ADF published their numbers at the link below:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf
115 Thousand same-sex households reported children in the household.
It was also reported that Conservatives opposed the release of the figures.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/26/strength-in-numbers.html
Dr. Fitzgibbons and Brian Raum,
Can you speculate as to why conservatives would have opposed the release of this data?
11.4.2011 | 6:44pm
Jonathan Weintraub says:
Correction, the ADF figures can be found at this link:
http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/SameSexHouseholdStats.pdf
http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/SameSexHouseholdStats.pdf
11.23.2011 | 12:20pm
Rick Fitzgibbons says:
As we wind down our discussions here, I would like to make four points:
1) Thank you to all of you who have shared your views. We have not always agreed, but it is in the sifting and winnowing that we will find the truth.
2) Jason, you ask for views on gay marriage if gay marriage is separated from gay adoption of children. This statement actually is at the heart of the entire debate. If other gay activists can so quickly separate marriage from children, we see that the heterosexual community, which on the average naturally connects these two (marriage and children), is distinctly different in attitude, opinion, and practice than is the gay community. This is not a trivial point. It needs careful thought and discussion because "marriage" in the law will mean the exact same thing for all who marry even though the two communities (heterosexual and gay) within themselves mean quite different things by the term "marriage." Because the two communities seem to differ substantially on what a "marriage" is (presuming that you, Jason, capture the essence of what marriage means for the gay community), will the heterosexual conception of the term marriage gradually shift as two distinctly different views go under the states' one definition of marriage? It would be in everyone's best interest to reflect deeply on this question, given how differently we view the term "marriage."
3) We have discussed statistics, particularly the claim, which I am now disputing, that there are 2 million children in same-sex households. Thank you, Jonathan, for supplying a census link on this. That link claims 115,000 nationwide same-sex unions in which there are children (by governmental figures). If this figure is correct, then for there to be 2 million children living in same-sex households, this would mean that on the average each of these households has about 19 children in each.
My point is this: The new document, All Children Matter, lists 2 million children in same-sex households and this is an obvious error. It looks like either someone was not paying attention or that there is a rhetorical move here to inflate figures for the sake of sympathy. If the latter has happened, this is dishonest. This is not in the spirit of the truth-seeking in my point 1 above. It could spark an unwarranted sympathy that will lead to one more conclusion that logically follows, which I discuss in the final point below.
4) In the final analysis, this debate has come down to the children: Will they be best served by a mother and a father or will any household pattern suffice if those in the household "want" children? Not only is there a gay movement to raise children by state sanction, but also there is a similar drive mounting in what is called the polyamory community (multiple members of one marriage living together). What is the moral basis for depriving the polyamory community of what they see as their civil right to adopt children if they want them, especially if the gay community is granted legal status to marry and adopt children? There can be no obvious sanction against this call by the polyamory community if states legally sanction marriage and adoption for same-sex *couples* because then there would be no moral basis or scientific basis (because the scientific data are lacking, as is currently the case for the gay [male] community) for excluding *triples* and *quadruples* and beyond. Whose wants and needs will we serve first, adults who desire to raise children or children who have the right to one father and one mother?
1) Thank you to all of you who have shared your views. We have not always agreed, but it is in the sifting and winnowing that we will find the truth.
2) Jason, you ask for views on gay marriage if gay marriage is separated from gay adoption of children. This statement actually is at the heart of the entire debate. If other gay activists can so quickly separate marriage from children, we see that the heterosexual community, which on the average naturally connects these two (marriage and children), is distinctly different in attitude, opinion, and practice than is the gay community. This is not a trivial point. It needs careful thought and discussion because "marriage" in the law will mean the exact same thing for all who marry even though the two communities (heterosexual and gay) within themselves mean quite different things by the term "marriage." Because the two communities seem to differ substantially on what a "marriage" is (presuming that you, Jason, capture the essence of what marriage means for the gay community), will the heterosexual conception of the term marriage gradually shift as two distinctly different views go under the states' one definition of marriage? It would be in everyone's best interest to reflect deeply on this question, given how differently we view the term "marriage."
3) We have discussed statistics, particularly the claim, which I am now disputing, that there are 2 million children in same-sex households. Thank you, Jonathan, for supplying a census link on this. That link claims 115,000 nationwide same-sex unions in which there are children (by governmental figures). If this figure is correct, then for there to be 2 million children living in same-sex households, this would mean that on the average each of these households has about 19 children in each.
My point is this: The new document, All Children Matter, lists 2 million children in same-sex households and this is an obvious error. It looks like either someone was not paying attention or that there is a rhetorical move here to inflate figures for the sake of sympathy. If the latter has happened, this is dishonest. This is not in the spirit of the truth-seeking in my point 1 above. It could spark an unwarranted sympathy that will lead to one more conclusion that logically follows, which I discuss in the final point below.
4) In the final analysis, this debate has come down to the children: Will they be best served by a mother and a father or will any household pattern suffice if those in the household "want" children? Not only is there a gay movement to raise children by state sanction, but also there is a similar drive mounting in what is called the polyamory community (multiple members of one marriage living together). What is the moral basis for depriving the polyamory community of what they see as their civil right to adopt children if they want them, especially if the gay community is granted legal status to marry and adopt children? There can be no obvious sanction against this call by the polyamory community if states legally sanction marriage and adoption for same-sex *couples* because then there would be no moral basis or scientific basis (because the scientific data are lacking, as is currently the case for the gay [male] community) for excluding *triples* and *quadruples* and beyond. Whose wants and needs will we serve first, adults who desire to raise children or children who have the right to one father and one mother?
