I have always found the claim that same-sex marriage will lead to the recognition of polygamy unconvincing. Some 48 countries recognize polygamous marriage in their civil codes and a further 14 recognise them under customary law. Of these 62 countries, only one, South Africa, recognises same-sex marriage. Eleven counties recognise same-sex marriage, of which only South Africa recognises polygamy.

However, it is certainly the case that foreign same-sex and polygamous marriages do raise the same kind of questions for countries that do not recognise them in their own civil codes. The courts of all nations have had to develop a system of Private International Law to address cases with a foreign element. A very important class of cases has involved questions of civil status: questions of marriage, divorce, paternity, legitimacy, legitimation, adoption and the closely-related question of inheritance.
In the interests of international comity and in order to give effect to existing rights, courts have applied the personal law of the parties to these cases.

The French courts have had to deal with the questions that arise where citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in France, where marriage is strictly monogamous. They have had to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife described in the Code Civil to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them. On the other hand, they have not denied all effect to such relationships, recognizing the rights of support and succession to movables that flow from them. Similarly, the French courts, prescinding from the question of validity, have recognized a Dutch same-sex marriage for tax purposes.

St. Thomas Aquinas was more intimate with and dependent on the Bible than modern Popes are. The only time we hear that wives should obey their husbands is in the liturgy when epistles are quoted at Mass. The concept is absent in Vatican II and absent in the catechism because we have drifted from the Bible on a number of topics into a general feeling of what is Catholic right now in modernity. It's like a Catholic Lambeth that is beneath the radar. So on husband headship and on the death penalty, we moved toward Western civilization and away from the epistles.
Some Catholics who are gay or who sympathize with family members who are gay
did that same drift away from the Bible that Church leaders have done on entirely different topics. When you give a dance, you have to pay the band. I think Aquinas was more orthodox because he stayed near God's word on each topic.

Why not get the state out of the marriage business? Let the state simply enforce contracts. Let the churches (and by extension, other groups) define and offer the consecration of marriages as they see fit.

George Weigel says: "For if the state can decree that two men or two women can make a marriage, why not one man and two women? Two women and two men? These are not paranoid fantasies; the case for polyandry and polygamy is now being mounted in prestigious law journals."

If God in the Old Testament can accept a man and two or more women as being married, I don't see what prevents the state from doing so. The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew traces the ancestry of Jesus back to David and his seventh wife, Bathsheba. About a quarter of the countries of the word currently have polygamous marriage. It seems to me that those who refuse to recognize that polygamous marriage is a form of marriage are in some kind of strange denial.

Now, is polygamy *desirable* in our society? I certainly don't think so. Would it be a mistake for government to recognize polygamous marriages? It seems to me it would. But this is a matter of what the government ought not to do, not a matter of what the government can't do.

George Weigel says: "It’s impossible to imagine a Catholic priest pronouncing those words at a gay wedding."

It is impossible to imagine a Catholic priest pronouncing those words at a wedding in which one or both spouses have been previously marred and have not obtained an annulment. Yet millions of civil marriages take place between what the Catholic Church would consider people who are already married. As has been noted hundreds of times before, the Catholic Church understands marriage to be indissoluble, whereas virtually every country on earth except Vatican City and the Philippines has civil divorce after which civil remarriage is recognized. To the best of my knowledge, organizations such as Catholic Charities who refuse to recognize same-sex marriage for the purposes of spousal benefits do not balk at, say, allowing a divorced and remarried man from including his second wife on his insurance. And yet in the eyes of the Church, they are living in adultery.

It is just a fact that civil marriage in the United States and in many countries across the world departs from the "Catholic model" or Robert George's definition of "conjugal marriage" in many ways.

George Weigel says: "And if the state can define marriage by diktat, why not other basic human relationships, like the parent-child relationship, the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or the priest-penitent relationship?"

Well, of course the state routinely accepts the husband of a pregnant woman to be the father of her baby even when there is proof to the contrary. I don't think the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, and and perhaps even the priest-penitent relationship as being "prior" to the existence of the state and being "givens" to be protected. The lawyer-client relationship, it seems to me, cannot exist prior to or independent of the existence of the state and its legal system. The state has all kinds of controls over the doctor-patient relationship, and it is currently the case in some states that the priest-penitent relationship is modified by law (for example, by requiring mandatory reporting of child abuse).

George Weigel says: "Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the 'dictatorship of relativism.'”

Quite frankly, I don't think the "dictatorship of relativism" make sense as a concept, and certainly I don't see why, even if it did make sense, it would apply here. Whether one approves of or opposes same-sex marriage, I think it is clear that proponents are not arguing moral relativism. They are not arguing that it is moral for people who think it is moral and immoral for people who think it is immoral. They are arguing that same-sex marriage is a right, and that it is good and moral.

Michael PS, the proper formulation is not "same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy". Whether or not this is true it assumes the main objection is that it "leads to something".

The proper formulation is that someone who is willing to consciously and arbitrarily redefine marriage to such an extent as to permit homosexuality has no ground for rejecting any other form of sexual relationship as any grounds he has pled for homosexuality can be equally given for any other sexual relation.

Peter, your suggestion that the state "get out of the marriage business" appears to be a good one. If marriage were only about private ritual that sanctifies the personal beliefs of a couple according to the traditions of their religious communities, then I think that your suggestion would be a sufficient solution. However, by its very nature, marriage is a public institution. It confers privileges and responsibilities not only on the couple, but it also calls on the public (that is, everyone-- including those outside of the religious communities) to treat that couple in a way that reflects those privileges and responsibilities. So therefore, we need to discuss this issue by acknowledging the necessarily public dimension of the institution we call "marriage". It is not just a private affair.

Bill Bannon: "The only time we hear that wives should obey their husbands is in the liturgy when epistles are quoted at Mass."

These days, with those words in brackets, it's rare one gets to hear them pronounced at Mass. I spoke to my monsignor over this a few years ago when he skipped these words and took the easy way out. I told him I thought he was depriving folks of God's word, and that he should have looked at it as an opportunity to teach. I really wish these words weren't in brackets, as well as most other words that are bracketed.

Everything modern liberals believe is under girded by such "soft totalitarianism." True liberty is anathema to them, because they always think they know better. The state is the long arm of their ostensible benevolence.

Peter Freedman-Doan

Unfortunately civil status (including marriage) affects all sorts of other questions, in both public and private law, such as nationality, naturalisation, residence and domicile, paternity and succession. Few states would be willing to privatise such matters.

Jason Taylor

The fact remains that only one of the countries that allows SSM also allows polygamy, and there polygamy is the older institution of the two.

Bibbit,
None are bracketed at the USCCB NAB Bible. Try I Cor.11-13/ Col.3:18/ I Tim.2:11-12/ Titus 2:5/ I Peter 3:1. And the official Catholic Bible in terms of disputes e.g. in liturgy that arise among scholars is the Vulgate anyway.

"If God in the Old Testament can accept a man and two or more women as being married, I don't see what prevents the state from doing so. The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew traces the ancestry of Jesus back to David and his seventh wife, Bathsheba...It seems to me that those who refuse to recognize that polygamous marriage is a form of marriage are in some kind of strange denial. " --David Nickol

As has been communicated to you in other posts before, God doesn't approve of polygamy in the Old Testament. Every time we see it (Rachel and Leah, David and his wives), it's made quite clear in the context of the story that bad things always happen when polygamy is practiced. Rachel and Leah are jealous of each other, and so are their children, to the point of an attempt on Joseph's life.

David's own son (Absalom) rebels against him, and God says through his prophet that the rebellion was a direct result of his iniquity with Bathsheba.

As for the last part of your argument, you seem to be suggesting that because a sizable portion of humanity accepts polygamy, it's justified and okay. Most Muslim nations "legally" recognize the right of the state to kill homosexuals, witches, and apostates. Surely you're not suggesting that if that becomes "one fourth of the nations of the world" we ought to permit such things here...

Children will suffer. Poor people will suffer and most importantly the societal value of monogamy will suffer if marraige is redefined. But we upper class types need not worry. Our financial resources and adherence to traditional morality no matter what some kooky gov. pols dream up will always come to our rescue in the end. I predict that if marriage is redefined it will be a luxury reserved disproportionally for people in the upper brackets.

But Americans and most nominal Catholics are in love with the idea and think it is the pinnacle of tolerance, compassion etc. etc. It is ofcourse a sham and a very big one but we won't be able to see it for many many years. Hunker down, the family is about to be redefined out of existence.

PS Look at what France is proposing: banning the words Mother and Father from all legal government usage. And they think that's the future? WOW!

Artaban7,

You say: "As has been communicated to you in other posts before, God doesn't approve of polygamy in the Old Testament."

That is an extraordinary weak and arguably silly argument and might be used to show that God "disapproves" or "approves" of almost anything. Even the old online Catholic Catechism says the following: "Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so. In so doing He uses His sovereign authority to diminish the right of absolute equality which naturally exists between man and woman with reference to marriage. In this way, without suffering any stain on His holiness, God could permit and sanction polygamy and divorce in the Old Law."

You say: "As for the last part of your argument, you seem to be suggesting that because a sizable portion of humanity accepts polygamy, it's justified and okay."

No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that polygamous marriage has been practiced since prehistoric times and is still practiced today. Whether you disapprove of it or not, polygamous marriage is still marriage. If it isn't marriage, what is it? Would you deny that Bathsheba was David's wife? Are we to rewrite the Bible and claim that Solomon had 1 wife and 699 mistresses? The Catholic position, as I understand it, is that polygamous marriage was once permitted and is no longer permitted. But even if it is no longer permitted, it is still marriage.

Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms from a theological standpoint, but what we’re dealing with in the public square is not a theological issue; even though the very issue we are dealing with imports historical concepts and ideals traditionally Christian, the very people we are arguing with do not think in these terms at all.
If you object to Gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is properly between a man and woman as sanctioned by the church, then you are not even talking to the people involved in the other side of the debate since they do not understand or agree with your initial premise. Not only is the argument weak, it is totally ineffective.
As Christians who think critically, and who want to contribute to law making and politics, we should do a better job at speaking to our opponents with ideas and moral values which make sense to them. What is the essential value they are trying to get at with respect to gay marriage? Is it theological? Does it have to do with belief in God? If you ask these questions then you will see that they are not even concerned with these issues at all. For them, marriage may mean something like companionship, or it may mean equal taxation rights, or perhaps even a simple and fun gathering with decorations. So is there a way to disagree with their position on these grounds, while making an effective point about the law? It would seem that there is.

I'm starting to think that God has allowed this whole same-sex marriage debate for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuals who, after all, are not taking advantage of marriage in the places where it's legal for them to do so. The rates of marriage among them are between 5% and 10% and about half of those are so-called "open" marriages with no agreement to be faithful. But what the debate is forcing people to do is examine the nature of gender. The most recent studies in social psychology and neuroscience are showing that men and women are pychologically different after all, despite the protests of radical feminists and others. This doesn't disparage women, because it means that women have particular strengths that can't be duplicated by men, and that has ramifications for raising children. In fact, this alone nullifies the logic of those studies claiming that two men can raise a small child just as well as a man and a woman. So what I'm saying is that when these facts become better known and appreciated, then marriage will have a better foundation for being strengthened, because, for instance, women won't be casually looking for divorce on the erroneous notion that their children really don't need that male parental influence and can get along just as well without it, because they can't.

Just once, I'd like to hear a gay marriage advocate who cries "slippery slope argument" when conservatives raise the specter of polygamy actually answer the question.

Why, under the reasoning of gay marriage advocates, is polygamy unacceptable? Because polygamy is "sinful"? Because marriage is "inherently" between two people? Because marriage has traditionally been defined as between two people? Gay marriage advocates have already disregarded these same arguments in their argument for gay marriage. They cannot now reverse and use them against polygamy. Gay marriage advocates want to avoid a principled definition of marriage and draw an arbitrary line in the sand for political purposes.

As a former gay marriage advocate, I wish natural law was more widely used in the case against gay marriage, as Sherif Girgis and Robert George's articulation of it in "What is Marriage?" is what changed my mind. It amazes me that it took me so long to recognize what should have been obvious from the beginning: marriage is fundamentally a union of persons, and two men or two women simply cannot join together in the way that a man and a woman can. For a more in-depth treatment, I recommend that aforementioned article.

'Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”'

Gee whiz, I had no idea I was a "totalitarian". At least I'm a soft totalitarian, whatever that means.

I'm a liberal and I support gay marriage. I read First Things because I like hearing religious and conservative perspectives on important social issues like gay marriage. And the tone of the debate here is far more respectful and dignified than 99% of the outlets for those same perspectives.

But lately (and maybe I'm just now noticing it) there seems to be a rash of anti-liberal rhetoric attacking a kind of caricature of what liberals like me actually think about these things. And sometimes it even drifts into paranoid hyperbole and name-calling.

Now, I know that there are lots of liberals who are guilty of this, too - throwing around words like "bigot" any time someone opposes gay marriage, and that also bothers me. I don't like it and I object to it when I hear it.

Here in my state (Washington) the legislature recently approved gay marriage. Now there's a referendum on the ballot this November to decide the issue. I plan to vote in favor of gay marriage. According to Mr. Weigel I am a soft totalitarian. It makes me chuckle a little.

I look at these types of essays as "rally-the-troops" diatribes, and not serious attempts at really convincing anyone to take a fresh look at the issue. So be it. Sometimes the troops need to be rallied, and telling them how persecuted they are by a world full of us nasty, soft totalitarians is one way to do it. And not a bad way to try and turn out the vote, either.

It's too bad, though. I like having my ideas challenged, and First Things has from time to time really challenged them. But not today. Oh well...there's always tomorrow's essay...and I really do check it out almost every day.

"Just once, I'd like to hear a gay marriage advocate who cries "slippery slope argument" when conservatives raise the specter of polygamy actually answer the question."

I'll give it a try.

I suppose if our society got around to widespread acceptance of polygamy, then eventually it would become a legally recognized form of marriage.

Gay marriage didn't even really appear on the radar screen until homosexuality gained a great deal of widespread acceptance within our society. I don't sit up at night worrying about the upcoming wave of polygamist activism which will sweep across the nation. But if it were to happen, I wouldn't argue that our society couldn't allow such a form of marriage if it so chose.

Marriage is a social institution. We all agree on that. And in the end it will largely reflect the accepted mores of the society in which it exists. That to me seems inevitable.

What I don't see as inevitable is that our society will suddenly develop a great fondness for man-wife-wife (or man-dog, as the hysterics like to project) relationships. It could happen. I don't worry about it, just as I don't worry about being fed soilent green, though that could happen too, I suppose.

I realize that this is too shaky ground for the religious idealists. They want something more solid to stand upon. I'm sure that my answer will be unsatisfactory. But you are asking me to be scared of something that I believe has only a small chance of happening; and then abandon my own moral position and act on that fear by denying marriage to gay people.

Abandoning a strongly held moral belief out of fear of an event that I don't believe is likely to occur would be silly, would it not?

Artaban7

If God does not approve, or at least accept, polygamy in the OT, why does Exodus 21:10 say, "f he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights," rather than a simple prohibition? The same applies to Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

David Nickol seems not to address the question that has exercised French and German courts over the recognition of foreign polygamous marriages. Words like "husband" and "wife" cannot be understood apart from their legal and social context. The German courts have taken the view that the relationship that exists between a man and the ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is different in kind to that which exists between husband and wife, as those terms are used in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Let the laws of their native country call it what they will, it is not what Germans understand, when they speak of marriage.

If God does not approve, or at least accept, polygamy in the OT, why does Exodus 21:10 say, "f he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights," rather than a simple prohibition? The same applies to Deuteronomy 21:15-17.--Michael PS

Michael, if someone gets divorced today, in many cases the woman still gets alimony or financial remuneration from the former spouse, even though they are no longer "married" under human law. The passage you cite from Exodus would seem to apply similarly to divorce and not a continuance of the first marriage, when taken in context, for the next verse says "If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."

As David Nickol points out, Solomon's practice of polygamy and concubinage is directly said to be the cause for the ruination of Israel, continuing the Biblical theme that polygamy or promiscuity leads to ill. Thus there is a consistent theme across Biblical books and authors that polygamy leads to other problems. That it is not and cannot be the ideal form of marriage, but only a pale shadow at best of what God intended, and a horror for a nation at the worst.

As for Deuteronomy 21:15-17, it doesn't legitimize polygamy any more than the laws condemning the owner of a killer bull to death legitimize the killing the bull has done. Both are taking a condition that has occurred that is negative/problematic/wrong, and saying what to do when it happens. Take a closer look at the passage, it deals with inheritance of children, not marriage.

Artaban7

"Take a closer look at the passage, it deals with inheritance of children, not marriage"

But it treats the children of both marriages as heritable issue and gives a double portion the eldest son, whether issue of the first wife or the second.

What distinguishes marriage from other forms of union is the heritablility of the issue

"It’s impossible to imagine a Catholic priest pronouncing those words at a gay wedding."

Well, that's factually untrue. I can imagine it. I bet some Catholic priests out there can imagine it, too. Even the author seems to acknowledge that there are Catholics out there able to imagine it. That's the big problem with this piece: it's all false, sloppy rhetoric and very little reasoning. And that small amount of reasoning is a failure. For instance:

"Rightly understood, marriage is one of those social institutions that exist “prior” to the state: prior in terms of time (marriage existed before the state), and prior in terms of the deep truths embedded in the human condition. A just state thus recognizes the givenness of marriage and seeks to protect and nurture this basic social institution."

First, this is just the "argument from tradition" dressed up with vague rhetoric, and tradition is not a sure sign of moral goodness.

Second, and more to the point, if the government merely recognizes something that already exists, then it's easy enough to say that gay marriage already exists, that it's based on "deep truths embedded in the human condition," and that it's about time the government got around to recognizing it!

This author works very hard to establish that the government should recognize opposite-sex marriage, but that's not sufficient to explain why it should NOT recognize same-sex marriage.

By the way, in case you're wondering how "By it, he gave to man a share in the greatest work of creation, the work of the continuation of the human race" can apply to same-sex marriage, just remember that part of this continuation consists of raising children and keeping them safe to adulthood. This, and not the mere act of copulation, is what demands a stable home and life-long commitment, and same-sex parents are perfectly able to provide that home and raise children who would otherwise go lacking.

John Donovan:

"I'm starting to think that God has allowed this whole same-sex marriage debate for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuals who, after all, are not taking advantage of marriage in the places where it's legal for them to do so."

?

Here in Canada, judging by the data released from the latest census (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120919/dq120919a-eng.htm), the numbers of same-sex couples--married and common-law both--have been rising sharply since 2006, one year after Parliament passed Bill C-38 fully legalizing same-sex marriage. The number of same-sex married couples is up to 21 thousand from 7 500 in 2006, the number of common-law same-sex relationships rising a more moderate 15 per cent to 43,600 from 37,900 in 2006.

That's still low, true--a recent poll (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/the-true-north-lgbt-new-poll-reveals-landscape-of-gay-canada/) suggests perhaps 5% of the Canadian population is GLBT, the poll suggesting that a third of these people acknowledged being in relationships unrecorded by Statistics Canada.

How do you come to the conclusion that GLBT people aren't taking advantage of same-sex marriage where such is recognized? Were you expecting everyone to get married the day after?

There is no sound moral argument in favor of imposing the SSM definition of marriage. Those who claim otherwise rely on assertion of a moral assumption rather than sound argumentation. Or they shrug and concede that moral relativism is the best they might do.

The Canadian census has admitted it overestimated the number of SSM'd Canadians. Also note that even if you'd guestimate that 5% of the adult population is homosexual, then, the available evidence means that 96%of the adult homosexual population is not SSM'd. Participation rates are low and declining. Likewise for same-sex householding (census term that assumes a sexualized adult relationship). The trends are familiar in other very pro-gay jurisdictions. (Also not that There is no residency requirement in Canada so SSM licensing has been heavily padded by foreigners from many non-SSM locales.)

Polygamy is a series of two-sexed unions. The first wife does not marry the second wife. Neither marry the third wife. As a social practice, polygamy relies on the pre-existence of authentic marriage -- the comprehensive relationship of husband and wife. The nature of that type of relationship is not dependant on the diktat of the state. It is a given prior to the state whether or not that state tolerates polygamous practices.

The profferred reasoning in favor of SSM does not justify the lines of eligibility and ineligiblity that arise from the two-sexed nature of marriage. Yes, marriage is also a foundational social institution of civil society but both that institution and the customs and traditions of civil society depend on the pre-existing nature of the union of husband and wife. That there are social derivatives of that core of marriage is undisputable. But that fact stands in the way ofthe SSM idea and the polygamy idea -- the former is a rejection and the latter is a distortion of the core meaning of marriage as a social institution.

SSM argumentation swallows whole the polygamous idea. That is so whether or not polygamous societies include SSM; it is not a slippery slope argument but an argument from first principles. The reasoning is the thing .... not the proposed arbitrary line that SSMers suggest when they stand against polygamy. Note that there is no sound moral argument in favor of SSM nor is there a sound argument that would favor SSM while disfavoring Poygamous-like SSM. Always SSMers must circle back to tradition and other stuff they had already rejected while arguing for SSM.

The SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea. Its imposition sets Government against civil society and against liberty and against the nature of marriage. Polygamy has pround conflicts with the marriage idea but the argument against polygamous practices arises from the nature of marriage and from the core meaning of the social institution. SSM is not so well equipped to make a justified ban on polygamy and polyandry .... SSMers flinch when asked to draw such a line based only on the one-sexed scenario. So they quickly resort to brazening it out instead, as previous commenters illustrated above.

The original blogpost is brief but it is far more substantive and rightly reasoned than Tusani's empty rhetoric. No SSMer (not here nor elsewhere) has managed to justify special status for SSM (marital status is a special status for special reason ... reason rejected by SSMers). There is a wide range of types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the large nonmarriage category. Why elevate the type of one-sexed relationship that SSMers favor and treat is as superior to all others in the nonmarriage category?

It typically comes down to the assertion that gay identity politics trumps all other considerations. But that just a crass political assertion and it lacks a principled basis for special status.

The pro-SSM rhetoric and argumentation destroys the SSM idea ... in terms of the pro-SSM complaint and in term of the pro-SSM remedy. SSMers don't like that but usually shrug when they acknowledge it. They argue against themselves and couldn't care less who wins. Any rhetoric and any convenient "argument" will do for them regardless of the blatant contradictions.

One of the most glaring is the complaint that the man-woman requirement is arbitrary (supposedly). Another is that the one-flesh union is merely a metaphor. Both of those pro-SSM poses contradict the imposition of SSM-as-marital. SSM is a state created thing that if imposed is imposed without justification. It is arbitrary. And it would force on civil society a legal fiction which, in itself, is merely a metaphor for authentic marriage -- the comprehensive relationship of husband and wife. SSM is a conceptual mess that requires soft totalitarianism to make its falsehoods the new orthodoxy. Yet that in itself contradicts the pro-SSM campaign's attacks on the sound and time tested marriage idea.

I left a comment at the blogsite for National Organization for Marriage. In it I responded to some of the comments of SSM supporters that appeared in this discussion:

http://www.nomblog.com/28729/

Regarding Chairm's lengthy post:

Paragraph 1: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated. Also false (“they shrug and concede”).

Paragraph 2: Empirical claims offered without support. Relevance of claims not specified.

Paragraph 3: Irrelevant to my points (though perhaps not to what others have posted) so I’ll pass over it.

Paragraph 4: Relies on undefined terms (“profferred reasoning in favor of SSM”) and is circular, assuming what it is trying to prove (“the two-sexed nature of marriage”).

Paragraph 5: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated.

Paragraph 6: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated. Also circular, assuming what it is trying to prove.

Paragraph 7: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated. Willfully blind, ignoring (not even attempting to deal with) arguments evaluated in court by people like Ted Olson and David Boies.

Paragraph 8: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated.

Paragraph 9: Statements that are asserted but not demonstrated. Also false (“they acknowledge it”).

Paragraph 10: Summation of statements that are asserted but not demonstrated.

Chairm:

"The Canadian census has admitted it overestimated the number of SSM'd Canadians."

Yes, it overestimated the number of common-law same-sex relationships by 4500 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/19/census-same-sex-marriage-family.html). The minimum increase that occurred is still substantial, far more rapid than population growth:

"The agency counted 21,015 married gay and lesbian couples and another 43,560 in common-law relationships. That's up from the 2006 census, which enumerated 45,345 of them — 7,465 married and 37,885 common-law."

"Also note that even if you'd guestimate that 5% of the adult population is homosexual, then, the available evidence means that 96%of the adult homosexual population is not SSM'd."

I apologize if my communication of the statistics were unclear. 5% of the adult population of Canada, as that poll by the right-leaning National Post suggests, is GLBT. The poll suggests that a third of these people are involved in relationships, while Statistics Canada's data suggests that 0.8% of all relationships are same-sex relationships (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Census+Here+come+brides+Same+marriages+soar+Canada/7265321/story.html).

The low estimate provided by Statistics Canada suggests that just under 20% of the Canadian GLBT population is in a same-sex marriage, a decade after it was recognized across Canada, the high estimate provided by the poll suggesting one-third of the total are so involved. Neither figure is close to 5%.

"Participation rates are low and declining. Likewise for same-sex householding (census term that assumes a sexualized adult relationship). The trends are familiar in other very pro-gay jurisdictions."

You appear to misunderstand the statistics very badly.

"(Also not that There is no residency requirement in Canada so SSM licensing has been heavily padded by foreigners from many non-SSM locales.)"

The Canadian census covers only Canada, and Canadian residents; it doesn't include non-Canadians who just got married and left.

Rob, your previous comments failed to demonstrate the assertions you made. Your itemized reaction to my comment demontrated much of what I said ... shrugs included.

It is particularly amusing that you cited Boise and Olsen who have also demonstrated the points I made.

SSM moralism does not provide sound moral argumentation, so say I. In other words, I challenge the SSMers above who asserted pro-SSM moralism to supply the sound moral argumentation that their comments promised. If their assertions are not demonstrated, and they were not here, then their comments would run afoul of the standard you invoked, Rob, in your shrugful reaction to my comment.

But is sound moral argumentation decisive for SSM supporters? For you, Rob? If not, the pass and shrug will demonstrate what I said earlier.

There's surely something eccentric involved with insisting that, as soon as same-sex marriage became legal in Canada, everyone who might conceivably be interested in entering into such a legal relationship should have done so. Does cairnm expect heterosexuals entering into opposite-sex marriage to all get married at some point--all on their 25th birthday, say? Must a right be immediately exercised by everyone for the right to be meaningful?

The participation rates are low when the measure is the number of residents who get licenses to SSM. The participation rates are low when the measure is the census estimate of adults who SSM'd.

The survey that Randy linked is way out of whack not just for the SSM's licensed and for the Census estimates, but also for these measures in most other jurisdictions where SSM is available and these things are counted.

Anyway, look at the survey. Its sample size: 2,694 of which 5% answered in the affirmative for the GLBT question; so the subsample that matters on the SSM participation is just 135 respondents. That tiny sample size effects the margin of error and the confidence level significantly.

But if Randy wants to rely on that one survey, fine, let him reconcile the discrepancies somehow.

The Canadian census reported an adult population of about 27 million. If, as Randy speculates, 5% of that population comprises the adult homosexual population, then, that would mean about 1.4 million adults.

Now, look at the census numbers and tell me how you can get to a third of that subpopulation being SSM'd.

The census reported (prior to the notice on its overestimation) that 21 thousand are SSM'd -- that would mean 42 thousand adults or less than 4% of the adult homosexual population. About 96% are not participants.

The census also reported a more inclusive estimate for same-sex householding -- SSM'd and common-lawed -- more than 64 thousand (say 128,000 adults) or less than 10% of the adult homosexual population. About 90% are not participants in that broader category.

But here we see an example of SSMers exagerating the participation rates. First we saw it when the marriage rate was heavily padded by foreigners. Now we see it with the Census making far too much of increases from zero percent to ... well, 3% (or 10% if we use the broader category). Sure when you go from nothing to something -- even if you go from 1 couple to 2 couples -- the rate of change can appear impressive. But that is misleading, obviously.

As for that survey, the tiny subsample size should caution readers from placing too much stock in it. At the same time, considering how SSMers redefine so much that is marital, well, perhaps some respondents think that their relationship is a type of SSM because the core meaning of SSM remains so vaguely explained by SSM advocates.

-----

Another interesting statistic from Canada: the census reported only 6.4 thousand same-sex households (SSM'd and common-lawed) with children present. That would be less than 1% of the adult homosexual population.

Clearly, SSM is a marginal practice within the gay identity group itself. The SSMm idea as a type of relationship is not normative. SSM argumentation and rhetoric misleads in many, many, many ways.

Unfortunately, the falsehoods travel around the world twice before the truth has its shoes on.

Okay, Chairm, let's take the first paragraph:

"There is no sound moral argument in favor of imposing the SSM definition of marriage."

Asserted, not demonstrated.

"Those who claim otherwise rely on assertion of a moral assumption rather than sound argumentation."

Asserted, not demonstrated.

"Or they shrug and concede that moral relativism is the best they might do."

Asserted. not demonstrated.

Over and over, Chairm, you say things without giving us any reason to believe them.

In your second paragraph, you say "Participation rates are low and declining." but in your last post you are forced to acknowledge they are not declining. This, apparently, is what happens when you are pushed into finding evidence.

Also in the last post: "It is particularly amusing that you cited Boise and Olsen who have also demonstrated the points I made."

That's another example of you making an assertion but providing no reason for us to believe it.

Rob, you stated that establishing that the government should recognize opposite-sex marriage is not sufficient to explain why it should NOT recognize same-sex marriage.

Actually, it does suffice.

The core meaning of marriage is integration of the sexes, provision for responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole. That is what makes marriage a social institution. This sets apart the union of husband and wife from other types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category. This is what justifies the special status of marriage.

An attack on the bride-groom requirement triggers the moral obligation to protect this foundational social institution of civil society. The SSM idea is a rejection of the marriage idea.

The onus is on you, Rob, to explain why society, via government, might be morally obligated to do what you demand of society. Lazy rhetoric does not suffice.

Your statement used a redundancy -- 'opposite-sex marriage' -- and an oxymoron -- 'same-sex marriage'. You assumed your conclusion.

Fair enough. Your rhetoric may be sloppy but your approach here has promised more.

1. Explain why marriage is different from and ought to be set apart from other types of relationships and living arrangements.

2. Explain why same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance, same-sex sexual behavior, or gay identity invokes the moral obligation that society abolish the bride-groom requirement.

If item 2 is irrelevant to item 1, please say so forthrightly. Instead, please explain what invokes the moral obligation to do what you demand of society.

If item 2 is relevant to item 1, then, please provide the sound moral argumentation that same-sex sexual behavior is ever moral. If the morality of such behavior is irrelevant, then, please explain the nonsexual basis for item 1.

Now, I do not expect you to go into this in great detail here in this comment section. I doubt that the readership would expect either of us to do so. But this is the basic challenge that pro-SSM rhetorical flourishes fail to meet forthrightly.

Weigel said that the just state does not overstep its boundaries of competence. This idea is reflected in the Catholic critique of the SSM idea.

"Rightly understood, marriage is one of those social institutions that exist 'prior' to the state: prior in terms of time (marriage existed before the state), and prior in terms of the deep truths embedded in the human condition. A just state thus recognizes the givenness of marriage and seeks to protect and nurture this basic social institution."

Rob, that is not an argument from tradition. Marriage is neither created nor owned by government. Not then. Not now. This is not about tradition nor custom nor law. It is about the nature of government and the nature of marriage.

I would think that we can readily agree that sometimes tradition, custom, or law can get stuff wrong; it can get stuff right. How do we discern right from wrong? Weigel did not make an argument from tradition. He has reflected on the principled basis for marriage.

Previous pro-SSM commenters made the point that government could do stuff that it ought not to do. It is the same basic point that Weigel made.

You mistook what Weigel said about the deep truths embedded in the human condition and the givenness of marriage.

You asserted that 'gay marriage' already exists. But does it? Sure, you asserted that it exists but you have not provided the sound moral argumentation to demonstrate its existence. But you are not alone among SSM supporters on that score.

Marriage exists. Happy (or gay) marriages exist. But you meant something else. You have not demonstrated the truth of your intended meaning.

Weigel said that "It’s impossible to imagine a Catholic priest pronouncing those words at a gay wedding."

That makes sense.

Marriage is an image of Christ's spousal love for the Church. The marital relationship is a comprehensive union and necessarily entails bodily union (sexual union) of man and woman; same-sex sexual behavior involves grave sin. So, 'gay marriage' is unimagined in Word and Sacrament.

That is, given the twin pillars of Catholic teaching, the SSM idea cannot be reconciled with the priestly exhortation read before bride and groom make their marital vows.

To this, Rob, you responded by claiming it to be untrue because 1) you imagine it, and 2) you imagine priests who can imagine it, and 3) the author notes that individuals might imagine it out of confusion about the twin pillars of Catholic life. But you missed the theological point.

You stooped to a cheap rhetorical flourish and missed the explanation that was right before your eyes. Your confusion failed to transform falsehood into a truth. Okay, you might reject Word and Sacrament, if you are not confused, but what Weigel said is true.

Your reaction sheds a harsh light on your claim that Weigel's blogpost is "all false, sloppy rhetoric and very little reasoning. And that small amount of reasoning is a failure." Your criticism rather suites your own comments here.

To illustrate your thinking you said that Weigel had argued from tradition. Yes, that illustrated your thinking; but, no, you got it wrong. See my previous comment. When you demonstrate confusion you invite correction. Please pause and reflect before reacting with yet more rhetorical sidewinders.

Randy, contrary to your misrepresentation of what I said here, I have not insisted "that, as soon as same-sex marriage became legal in Canada, everyone who might conceivably be interested in entering into such a legal relationship should have done so."

I have said the participation rates are low.

You said:

"Does Chairm expect heterosexuals entering into opposite-sex marriage to all get married at some point--all on their 25th birthday, say?"

Most people do marry and the vast majority do so during their childbearing years. As for expectations, well, that is what norms are about. SSM (under whatever guise) is not a normative practice within the adult homosexual population.

You thought that 33% participation (a third as reported by the survey of 135 respondents) was a realistic account of SSM in Canada although you also acknowledged the census data showing that 96% of the adult homosexual population is not SSM'd in Canada. How to reconcile that dioscrepancy and your current objection that I observed the low participation rates? Does the rate of participation not matter, at all, to the political demand for SSM as some sort of a solution to delivering government benefits to the adult homosexual population the vast majority of which does not participate?

You hinted that maybe participation is irrelevant, when you said:

"Must a right be immediately exercised by everyone for the right to be meaningful?"

That question does not follow our discussion. We were told of the urgency of imposing SSM. We were told that hundreds of thousands could not wait. We were told that same-sex householding was already widespread and that the law needed to catch-up, now. But those claims ran smack into the wall of reality.

And so we now get the big shrug that communicates the indifference is to be expected and that the right is meaningful regardless of very low participation. The switch from -- hey we need this -- to the political symbolism of a supposed "right" that does not actually exist in the moral order of things.

GW says: "gay marriage, by its very nature, cannot be a fruitful one-flesh union"

It's true that by nature, it cannot be fruitful and create offspring, but they want to improve on nature, they want to create offspring using lab-created gametes. We can either allow people to create offspring with someone of the same sex or we can prohibit it. If we prohibit it, we should also prohibit marriage, because marriage should always approve and allow the conception of offspring of the marriage, using the marriage's own genes.

GW quotes from the exhortation: "By it, he gave to man a share in the greatest work of creation, the work of the continuation of the human race."

Some people think we should take charge of evolution and the continuation of the human race, by creating genetically engineered people that are healthier, smarter, et cetera. In fact, those people are in the drivers seat, and no one is standing up to stop them. If we allow same-sex couples to make offspring together, we should certainly allow them to marry first. But we shouldn't, it would be really stupid.