On a number of occasions on this blog, I have made it clear that I have not been particularly happy about the quality of the debate on gay marriage. While I have focused on the rhetoric of the advocates of gay marriage, I have indicated from time to time that that of the opponents of gay marriage is no better.
One reason I have not focused as much on those opponents is because a number of other gay (as well as other media) oulets have addressed the silliness of their basic argument — that same-sex marriage would be a threat to traditional marriage. Unfortunately, when they take on this argument, I believe these activists merely dismiss the argument (while sometimes offering vague allusion to “responsibilities” and “commitment”).
Gay marriage advocates could do a better job of taking on opponents of gay marriage if they made clear that they recognized monogamy as an essential aspect of marriage for same- as well as different-sex couples. I agree with them that gay marriage per se doesn’t threaten the institution of marriage as we have long understood it in our culture, the monogamous lifetime union of one man and one woman. But, because advocates of gay marriage have, by and large, failed to address monogamy, I do see where the social conservatives are coming from.
When pushing for gay marriage, too few of its advocates talk about standards. Without standards, gay marriage does represent a threat to traditional marriage as it creates a union that is little more than two people shacking up with the same freedom they enjoyed before they took their vows.
To show that advocates are aware of the life-changing meaning of those vows, it is of paramount importance that we discuss monogamy and other standards recognized as essential to marriage (as it’s currently understood) when we advocate extending its definition to include same-sex couples. When we make clear that monogamy is an essential aspect of marriage, we show that we recognize that this sacred institution represents a deeper level of commitment than just two people shacking up.
Just as gay marriage advocates need to show the seriousness of their commitment to the institution by talking about monogamy, if the opponents are really concerned about “protecting marriage,” as they claim, then they would spend as much (if not more) time discussing the threat no-fault divorce represents to marriage as study after study has shown the adverse impact of divorce on the children of such broke marriages.
A few weeks ago, I saw Focus on the Family‘s James Dobson on Hannity & Colmes. Dobson was blathering on (and on) about how gay marriage threatened the family, particularly the well-being of children. Yet, in the segment I watched, he offered nary a word about the threat of divorce. This, despite the fact that there is abundant evidence showing how divorce harms children. Indeed, no-fault divorce is as serious a threat to traditional marriage as gay marriage without standards.
Unlike Dr. Dobson, some advocates of traditional marriage are not overly obsessed with gay marriage. Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers admitted “Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”
As I’ve said repeatedly on this blog, America needs a serious conversation on gay marriage. It would help us understand why this institution is essential to our social well-being and how it could benefit gay — as well as straight — people. It’s unfortunate that while too many advocates of gay marriage would rather insult supporters of traditional marriage, too many opponents act as if all the only threat to traditional marriage comes from recognizing same-sex unions.
To have the serious conversation we need, gay marriage advocates need to show that they recognize monogamy is an essential aspect of marriage. That said, if opponents of gay marriage are truly concerned about protecting traditional marriage from the threats against it, they would join Mike McManus in also addressing the threat of divorce.
By bringing up monogamy and divorce, those who debate gay marriage would better show that they recognize that marriage is far more than a union between two individuals, be they of the same or different sexes.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Are you really so naive?
Dobson and the rest of the GOP is opposed to gay marriage because they think it will get them votes and all the negative impact is on a small class of voters who probably weren’t going to vote for them anyway (present company excluded). They are NOT against divorce because divorce laws are popular. Their stand is not a principled one. They are against gay marriage because it helps them to be against it, and they aren’t against divorce because it would hurt them to be against it. That is the complete extent of their real concern for marriage.
You are quite correct in noting that Dobson and the GOP obsess about gay marriage and studiously ignore divorce… but you then fail to take the next step and notice what this says about their principles, their character, their integrity, and their real motives. And that reinforces the widely-held perception that “gay Republicans” are dupes who can’t see who they are in bed with. Your observation about Dobson isn’t new… we have seen this kind of crass opportunism in most Republicans… the difference is that most gay people wonder “why are they doing that”, while you do not seem to have done so.
If you really want to do some serious analysis, then don’t just tell us that the GOP refuses to discuss divorce… tell us WHY you guys refuse to discuss divorce. I know why I think Republicans refuse to discuss divorce as a threat to marriage… and I would be FASCINATED to hear your views on why your party doesn’t do so. Obviously, Republican policymakers have made a conscious decision to ignore the effect of heterosexual divorce on the institution of marriage. As a Republican, would you care to tell us why?
Anonymous, your comment shows that a serious conversation is a last thing on your mind. You’re just interested in baiting anyone to the right of you. Perhaps you’re right about Dobson et al., but it’s hard to take you seriously when you refuse to even acknowledge the failure of (most) advocates of gay marriage to take up monogamy.
In your mind, it seems that only conservatives can do wrong and those on the left, particularly the gay left, are immune from criticism. If you really want to do some serious analysis, you would not merely ask why the GOP refuses to discuss divorce, but would yourself address the failure of the gay groups to discuss monogamy.
Perhaps, I’m naive, but at least I’m trying to get a conversation going whereas all you do is insult and attack. No wonder you hide behind your anonymity.
And your comment shows that you are only interested in a conversation that remains safely within your comfort zone… anything too inconvenient doesn’t hold your interest. Might I remind you that YOU were the one who brought up the fact that Republicans obsess about gay marriage but don’t want to do anything about divorce. All I did was ask you to examine why they do that, since that really is the more important part of it.
Your “serious conversation” as you have framed it is built on the faulty assumption that conservatives are really interested in protecting and strengthening marriage. My post was a challenge to that assumption. How can we have a conversation with people who are only interested in how the issue will help them at the polls? Dobson isn’t interested in a conversation. The GOP isn’t interested in a conversation. All I did was ask why.
Like I said in a comments a few days ago, GPW. Those of us who don’t support SSM have reasons other than hatred and bigotry for doing so. But the left is not interested in addressing our concerns, they would rather bully and grandstand.
And, for the record, I have stated repeatedly in this forum that easy divorce, serial marriage, and shacking up have diminished the value of marriage. I also support initiatives like Covenantal marriage and the elimination of no-fault divorce.
I believe the major disconnect between hetero acceptance of gay marriage is the sexual aspect of it.
Yes, love, commitment, manogomy, responsibility and all those other things that the two should share that make up the marriage, it still can be disgusting to even think of the sexual part, hetero or homo.
While it is really no one’s business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, gay sex is not a natural activity for two creatures of any species to do and anal & oral sex is not natural for heteros to do either. Because some heteros do it does not make it right nor acceptable.
If we simply get rid of the sexual aspect of our relationships and deal with unions we could make some advances. Really, civil unions could be all we would need as long as they provide the same legality and it could be extended to family members who share a household such as 2 brothers, sisters, neices or cousins as long as they provide that caring, commitment, responsibility aspect to the relationship, WITHOUT sex even coming into the picture.
Keep your disgusting sexual habits to yourselves, it is not equal to a man and a woman who truly love each other and join together as one and create life.
FINALLY! An HONEST conservative! (Now if the gay Republicans would just get around to admitting that they are as grossed out by gay sex as Ed is, we’d be making progress…)
Alright there Anonymous, I didn’t just describe my view of “Gay Sex”, it is sex in general, don’t speak half truths as most leftists do, say it all.
Alright Anonmyous, I had to go to a conference call, but I have to add to my last comment to you that sex is the “head of the nail” regarding the stigma.
Truly, who could ever object to two people or even 3 or 4 relatives that share a household supporting each other as they grow professionally and in their persoal relationships with others. Even more so when they are older and sometimes the last two brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles or any combination of a family who needs only each other’s company to live and still contribute to the community. Or even just 2 friends could form a civil union.
But, we want the sexual aspect to be part of the equation and all I am saying is that it does not need to be.
That last statement in my initial post was a little blunt. But really, truly, nothing, absolutely nothing could possibly compare to true, curious, clumsy and innocent love between a man and a woman that leads to marriage and family.
While this same scenario could happen between two men or two women, without the pro-creation, that IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES IT UNEQUAL. That is what make marriage sacred and a huge portion of the foundation of civilized society. That is why civil unions are what every other relationship should be.
That is my debate and I believe it and I just hope it makes all of us think about it.
7: “don’t speak half truths as most leftists do”
Since talking about facts, etc. here, can you provide proof that most leftists speak half truths?
@ 9 :
Do you really want the necessary link to the DU-mmies and the Brady Campaign?
@ OP :
To provide the simplest reason :
Divorce is looked strongly against, but it does what conservatives think should be done. We’re not interested in some mythical ‘perfectly secure’ marriage. Among other things, divorces make the marriages that survive appear significantly stronger. It also is a way to get rid of marriages that don’t involve any love anymore – unfortunate when it must happen, but better than the alternative in such a bad situation.
I’m also doubtful gay marriage would affect the longevity of normal marriages as well, simply for biological reasons, although my knowledge of human sexuality response is far from encyclopedic.
I think – and understand that I am not a Christian, only an observer – that there is some validity to the complaint that the emphasis on turning marriage into ‘civil commitment’ will eventually turn the debate onto the subject of polygamy, regardless of what gay/lesbian couples want.
There’s also the problem of marriages without either an urge to screw or involve love at one point. It hasn’t been a major issue with hetrosexual relations because, well, you can’t really get a straight male and a straight female together for too long without some sort of significant emotionalal attachment. In short, people don’t straight marry that often just for the economic aspect.
That however hasn’t been the case with gay marriage so far in Canada, and I think it’s an issue that the marriage-advocates are worried about, even if they really don’t want to bring it up.
“Without standards, gay marriage does represent a threat to traditional marriage …”
Straight male lurker and occasional commenter here. The conservative argument for gay marriage is also the conservative argument against gay marriage, for precisely this reason.
I had a discussion at a non-political meeting I attend with a 40 something gay male, and early 20 something gay male kind of joining in. It went like this:
Me addressing 40: There IS a conservative argument for gay marriage. It essentially says that part of the disfunctionality of the gay community is that it lacks a social normative for commitment. Combine that with both partners being male (is there ANY dissent on this point?), and you get an excessively promiscuous community.
40 guy: Yeah, I can see that point.
20 guy interjecting: “Marriage is an outdated heterosexually normative repressive institution. I hate my father.”
LOL. I’m not kidding. Thats the one conversation I’ve had.
I know enough not to take too much from it, but it is consistent with the face of the gay lobby. For me, I’ll sign on to gay marriage when gays sign on to the notion that marriage is in fact a heterosexually normative institution because humans are normatively heterosexual. Because marriage is important for stabilizing relationships. Because stable relationships are important for raising well socialized children.
I understand that gays were, and to a lesser extent are, discriminated against as a class. But currently, a large portion of that discrimination is based on politics… because gays are allowing themselves, as individuals, to be defined as members of a fully captured leftist identity group.
At this point it is a self reinforcing system.
Great site.
Now back to lurking.
Regards.
Uh…ok, I’m a little lost here. Marriage vs. monogamy: that is the issue? Oh come on! If any two wan’t to get married, well HELLO!!! Monogamy is part of the deal! If they decide otherwise, gay or straight, well that’s another issue.
Is this a bunch of fags who still live in the 1970’s? Where is this concept coming from?
Those who want to play the field, as it were, are not that interested in marraige. Those that want a commitment are exactly THAT: commitment minded.
Am I sounding angry? You betcha’. But That only means I’m pissed at the concept of that gays are the scum that make failed, miserable straight relationships OK. “Yeah, we suck….but at least we ain’t like them faggots!” kind of mentality. Does not matter about their kids, either. I have seen, and expeirienced for that matter, break-up parents using, indeed manipulating, their own kids to”get back” at the ex (if they were even married in the first place). Vile, yes I realise. But not as vile as gay parents (or at least gay partners) that we are led to believe they to be. Simply because they know what it’s like to be despised. And any love as a result is that much cherished.
Again, I do get angry at the concept of lesser than thou. Personally I shouldn’t even care: heck, I’m not even dating anyone right now. Marriage has always been somewhat abstact to me. Why? Because I was told that I wasn’t worthy… or some such crap that I believed.
Not anymore. Even if I live and die the rest of my life alone I will not, never, allow myself to think that I don’t matter.
Let the courts say what they will. More power to ’em. When the time comes to jump the broom; I won’t be looking at failures to guide my way.
Hey Bruce. Here’s the deal. Gay people are kind of icky to those folks who are repulsed by marriage equality for gays and lesbians. That’s sort of it in a nutshell. The great thing about that fact is that the “ick factor” tends to subside once straight people start talking about gay relationships as opposed to gay sex. When they see gay people are human beings who want loving relationships instead of rest stop-cruising sex-starved maniacs, they tend to soften their opposition to us. The task for all gay Americans is to convince those who are open to being persuaded that gay people are, by and large, just like them–with one obvious difference that we need to get past. Plenty of straight people (and married couples) are engaged in alternative lifestyles that don’t fit the Dobsonian picture of married life. True conservatives would tell Dobson to mind his own bidnez when it comes to the sex lives of married people. Gays and lesbians don’t have that option. Yet.
Anonymous, reading conservative columns, websites, publications, I have learned of the threat of divorce. I even quoted a conservative (a favorite of the Administration no less in the body of the post who made my point about divorce.) Even reading remarks of some elected Republicans. Legislators (mostly Republicans) in some states have put forward bills making divorce tougher to get.
If you deign to address why advocates of gay marriage are loath to discuss monogamy, I will consider meeting your challenge.
I did a post where I faulted both sides, yet you seem to use anything we write as just another excuse to attack the GOP. When you show you are willing to get beyond that zone of animus, I may start taking your seriously.
And thanks to Ed, V the K, gattsuru, jdavenport, Gustav and DCposter for raising some valid points. And DC, this is not Bruce\’s post, it\’s mine. 🙂
#1 Anonymous — July 11, 2006 @ 4:31 pm – July 11, 2006
Are you really so naive?
Yes, they are really so naive.
Or calculating. Don’t forget, the proprietors here are Republican party appartchiks, and most of the commenters here are Republican party apologists.
Let me understand this. According to the post, all same-sex couples have to be holier than thou, purer than the driven snow, and pinnacles of rectitude in order to achieve the same rights that opposite-sex couples have. Even though more than a few opposite-sex couples are hardly holier than thou, purer than the driven snow, or pinnacles of rectitude. More than a few opposite-sex couples aren’t monogamous. They’re sleeping around surrepticiously–I’ve noticed that on more than a few business trips that I’ve taken over the last 30 years and in more than a few firms that I’ve been involved with. They try to hide it, but they really aren’t very successful.
With opposite sex couples, the proverbial sh!t hits the fan, not when the dalliances are committed, but when the dalliances are made public. Former GE chairman Jack Welch had apparently engaged in more than a few dalliances (in addition to his many wives), but his most recent wife divorced him when it was publicized that he had engaged in an affair with someone who was writing an article about him for the Harvard Business Review. If that hadn’t been made public, it is probable that Welch and his former wife would still be married.
Creepin’ around–that’s what more than a few opposite sex couples do. And you’ll never, ever, be able to learn the percentage of opposite-sex couples who do “creep around” because they will never respond truthfully to any survey.
And you are seriously contending that members of same-sex couples should be held to a higher standard? Give me a break.
A few weeks ago, I saw Focus on the Family’s James Dobson on Hannity & Colmes. Dobson was blathering on (and on) about how gay marriage threatened the family, particularly the well-being of children. Yet, in the segment I watched, he offered nary a word about the threat of divorce.
Well, of course not. “Dr” Dobson (his doctorate is in the rather fraudulent field of “child psychology”) isn’t dumb. He knows that railing against homosexuals is good for fundraising. And he knows that, if he were to rail against divorce, he would turn off more than a few people who are his core constituents. As of a few years ago, the divorce rate (the percentage of people who had been divorced) in Massachusetts was half that in Texas, while the marriage rate (that is, the percentage of people who were married) in Massachusetts was much higher than that in Texas. Why would Dobson want to alienate his “cash cow” rubes by railing against divorce?
Otherwise stated: railing against homos=$, railing against divorce=no$.
It’s all about money.
As I’ve said repeatedly on this blog, America needs a serious conversation on gay marriage.
If it does need a serious conversation on gay marriage, you might want to read a bit of George Lakoff: the question has to be framed appropriately if you really want the conversation to go in the direction you might want. Merely referring to it as “gay marriage” raises the connotation (remember that word from a comment downstream?) that that is somewhat different from “marriage.” It isn’t different. It is “marriage,” pure and simple. By referring to state recognition of relationships of same-sex couples as “gay marriage” you have adopted the terminology of the enemy. Is that what you really want? I guess so.
#6 Anonymous — July 11, 2006 @ 6:18 pm – July 11, 2006
FINALLY! An HONEST conservative! (Now if the gay Republicans would just get around to admitting that they are as grossed out by gay sex as Ed is, we’d be making progress…)
You really must understand the nature of anti-male-gay homophobia–whether exhibited by Ed or anyone else. It really is little more than an an extension of mysogeny. I discovered that a few years ago while dishing with the homophobes on St. Rush, he of LameBrain’s, favorite website, the ridiculously-named FreeRepublic.com.
It became clear that, the male posters there considered gay males to be lower than women. Gay males were, of course, at the top rung, women at a lower rung, and males who engaged in homosex to be at even a lower rung. Indeed, more than a few of the posters there considered homomales who allowed themselves to be penetrated to be homos, but the penetrators were not. I recognize that that is stupid, but such was the mindset of the posters who post on Rush Lamebrain’s favorite website.
The few women who were anti-male-gays were such because they believed that gay males were mocking women. More stupidity, of course. But, what do you expect?
They basically ignored lesbians, but that is a topic for another comment.
#14 GayPatriotWest — July 12, 2006 @ 3:23 am – July 12, 2006
Anonymous, reading conservative columns, websites, publications, I have learned of the threat of divorce. I even quoted a conservative (a favorite of the Administration no less in the body of the post who made my point about divorce.) Even reading remarks of some elected Republicans. Legislators (mostly Republicans) in some states have put forward bills making divorce tougher to get.
That’s sweet. And just where did those bills go? Into the dumbster?
Why didn’t your Republicans sponsor a federal constitutional amendment outlawing divorce? Because they new that it wouldn’t go anywhere? Or because they knew that it might cut into their funding.
It’s all about money.
Hear, hear!
#15
The main point you seem to be missing (deliberately or not) is NOT that gays should be held to a ‘higher’ standard on marriage, but that they should be held to the same standard.
That standard, BTW, is not perfection. We’re all human and we understand that others are as well. It is unreasonable to expect that no one will ever cheat. However, the STANDARD is that people believe that cheating is wrong and that they SHOULD be monogamus.
People who fail at this are in the wrong.
Gays do not have to be perfect any more than straights do, they just have to agree with the standard and that their should BE a standard.
***
A couple of other things that were wrong in your post:
-No, the people on this blog are not Republican apologists. I am not even Republican (I’m a small-‘l’ libertarian who finds that the Republicans are closer to my positions than the Democrats…not because the Rs are so close, but because the Ds are so far), and Bruce and Dan frequently take Republicans to task on a variety of issues.
-Many ‘social conservaties’ honestly believe that gay sex is sinful and accepting gay marriage as a norm for our society would be devastating (not to mention, dangerous to children). I honestly believe they are wrong, but that doesn’t allow me to just dismiss their concerns as if they don’t exist. I have to accept that, in order to make my point(s), I have to have an answer for each of their objections…which requires LISTENING to what those objections are. And BTW, they tend to be more against gay marriage than divorce because divorce is a failure to live up to the standard while (in their eyes) gay marriage is the complete abandonment of the standard.
-Saying we shouldn’t use the term ‘gay marriage’ is just silly. We are talking about changing the definition of marriage by allowing two people of the same sex to participate; something that, a century ago wasn’t even thought about, much less seriously considered. If we aren’t allowed to have a shorthand to easily discuss it, the discussion ends. ‘Gay marriage’ IS different from ‘marriage’…if only because one is illegal while the other is not.
To pull out a line I use quite a lot, raj, obviously you didn’t read the post. You claim that “According to the post, all same-sex couples have to be holier than thou, purer than the driven snow . . .” I never said that. In this post, I was talking about the debate on gay marriage and how, by and large, both sides have failed to address two issues paramount to the institution of marriage.
Hardly the language of Republican party appartchiks. Indeed, this post wasn’t even about the GOP. (I used neither Republican nor GOP in the body of the post.)
Seems you guys are more interested in attacking Republicans than engaging in a serious discussion of the issues here. Reading George Lakoff for insight into a serious conversation on gay marriage would be like reading Karl Rove for a serious discussion on gun control. Both are partisans of their respective parties, eager to find means for them to triumph electorally.
And DinaFelice, thank you for nailing it in your first paragraph, a point which bears repetition: “The main point you seem to be missing (deliberately or not) is NOT that gays should be held to a ‘higher’ standard on marriage, but that they should be held to the same standard.” Good comment, Dina.
Actually, GPW, some of us think the standard needs to be raised across the board and everyone held to it.
Richard Cohen in today’s Washington Post argues just the opposite; that there should be gay marriage because family structure doesn’t matter.
Good post, Dan. Sorry that voices from the GayLeft don’t want to have a serious discussion about marriage.
Here in Michigan, some in society take marriage seriously and during the ballot initiative to define that as 1M-1W a group of us on the campaign/speakers’ trail –arguing against the initiative– made the point that the institution of marriage needed a makeover.
We argued for mandatory pre-marital instruction for ANYone who wanted to take out a marriage license, mandatory course requirements including class discussions in high school and middle school, at least a 30 day period between requesting a license and granting one, serious modifications to our no-fault divorce laws and overhaul of our family courts, child support, and dead-beat parent laws.
I think you see the issue of divorce addressed quite a bit among conservatives-just not so much conservative politicians.
I suspect a websearch of Dobson’s organization would likely reveal about as many hits on the issue of divorce as homosexuality.
I am a Christian, I have heard far more sermons on marriage and divorce than I have heard mentioning homosexality.
That said-the idea of covenant marriages appeals to me. I also think that no fault divorce has done far more to harm the institution of marriage than gays getting married ever would or could.
From my point of view, monogamy isn’t discussed as much in this debate because it’s par for the course. Marriage “means” monogamy in my mind. Yes, some will fail to meet that standard, but it is the standard.
I think GPWs post, whether intentional or not, implies monogamy isn’t on the table because gay folks don’t want it. We just want the civil benefits for taxes, visitation, etc but still want to keep a “swinging” lifestyle. While I’m sure that are plenty of couples (men in particular) that will continue to be openly promiscuous, that shouldn’t be the reason to not include gay couples in the marriage laws. These couples may be swinging BECAUSE they aren’t married. It may turn out that once married, most of them will accept the inherent monogamous responsibility of marriage. We have to have the option to be responsible, because without the option some will choose not to be. Anti-gay marriage folks can’t have it both ways: condemn us for being irresponsible, but then don’t give us the option to BE responsible.
Bottom line, I don’t think monogamy needs to be discussed necessarily on its own, because frankly, it is a given.
Poor Raj, such a GOP hater. FYI, I have been a Democrat for 32 years and only recently left my party because of it’s extreme left stance on everything.
BTW, no one has denied any gay person of marriage, everyone is welcome to find a man or woman, fall in love and marry. One catch of course, you know what it is, your spouse would have to be of the opposite gender.
When we deviate from that catch once, why should that be the only exception? What would make same sex marriage better that any other alternative living situation? Surely it is not that they are more special or deserving or holier than any others, is it?
While we are changing the meaning of the word marriage, let’s change more to suit all our societal differences.
Hey, that is the answer to all our problems, let’s just change the meaning of the words.
We just want the civil benefits for taxes, visitation, etc but still want to keep a “swinging” lifestyle.
YOu know I think part of this is in how the debate is being framed to some extent.
The desire for marriage argument is being couched in terms of the benefits of marriage that married heterosexuals have, not so much the committment in the relationship itself.
Part of this is probably that it is easier to make a “legal” argument on the basis of the things a gay couple doesn’t get that married couples do, but perhaps putting more of the relationship and committment aregument on the table would be a good thing. I have seen this to some extent, but most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to center on the civil benefits of marriage not the spiritual or relationship ones.
You guys use “hate” too much.
Ed of Tampa misses the intricacies of affection. His comment, “… really, truly, nothing, absolutely nothing could possibly compare to true, curious, clumsy and innocent love between a man and a woman that leads to marriage and family” is astonishing, and sad.
The no fault divorce was debated decades ago. Surely no one is taking the position that children of divorced parents were better off before no fault became available. Children suffer in divorce.
One would think monogamy is a priori to the decision to enter into a legally sanctioned partnership.
Agape.
Gene, please, what makes the comment so “sad & astonishing?” and affection between the love birds should be a given as monogamy should be a given in marriage. So please, what intricacies are you referring to?
Man and woman can do something that only men and women can do, that is what makes it divine, heavenly, necessary for our survival and that is what makes it the model.
I know the divorce rate is high and I know many, way too many stray from their spouses but those are human faults, not the fault of the institution. Out of curiosity, what percentage do you truly think DO NOT divorce or stray? Rhetorical please, I know it would only be a guess, but I would guess that it is far more than you think.
I am for marriage between a man and woman, civil unions for everyone else, less divorce between marriages and civil unions, and VERY tough sex crimes laws especially on children.
I think the most important thing to emphasize in the marriage debate is that civil marriage in this country is a legal contract between two people, nothing more. Straight people are not required under civil marriage to: love each other, be monogamous, live together, raise children, or anything else. There is no “standard.” You want to make monogamy the “standard,” then write that into the marriage law. (Good luck with that.) You want to discourage (or even outlaw) divorce? Make that the focus. (Again, good luck.) Seems to me it’s the straight people that want all the benefits, without any of the strings attached.
I think my brain is going to explode the next time someone like Newt Gingrich (who served his wife with divorce papers while she sat in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery) tries to tell me that letting me get married is flying in the face of thousands of years of tradition. Too bad those thousands of years of tradition aren’t currently part of the civil marriage laws.
Good point Thomas.
While I agree with GPW and his call for monogamy and responsibility to be included in the marriage debate, it really has nothing to do with an actual civil marriage (as far as the government is concerned).
Well that is exactly my point under a civil union, having sex with the other party does not even have to be mentioned.
It is the sex that brings husband and wife as one that makes the marriage, that creates the new life.
Any other sexual act that DOES NOT do that is, well, just any other sexual act. While we may care, be affectionate, desire and even love our same sexual partner it is not the holy matrimony you want to claim it to be. While we claim that we were born homosexuals, we still do control our sexual activity.
All the various sexual fetishes humans do is not a natural act for any species. It is the act of sex is what really needs to be cleaned up, come on now, ask any doctor or nurse who has spent any time on ER duty or take a walk down any red light district and you’ll see what I am talking about. I am referring to hetero sex also.
Ed:
You’re mixing religious and civil marriage again, which is my point. The two are not the same at all. Civil marriage is not “holy matrimony,” and never will be. I believe the state should get out of the “marriage” business altogether. Civil unions for everyone, straight couples included, because that’s all they are conferring now – a legal contract. Why call it “marriage”? If people want to be married, let them do it in a church.
#25 Ed of Tampa — July 12, 2006 @ 5:58 pm – July 12, 2006
BTW, no one has denied any gay person of marriage, everyone is welcome to find a man or woman, fall in love and marry. One catch of course, you know what it is, your spouse would have to be of the opposite gender.
That’s sweet, Ed of Tampa. Of course, you realize that that is the analog of the argument that the Commonwealth of Virginia used before the US Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia. Virginia argued that its anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause because it burdened whites and blacks to the same extent: whites couldn’t marry blacks (although, obviously they could marry other whites) and blacks couldn’t marry whites (although, obviously, they could marry other blacks). The Supreme Court shot that argument down, as you might see if you click onto the link–although I doubt that you will.
So, let’s see. Your argument is that a state’s denial of a person to marry someone of the same sex is not a violation of equal protection because they can always marry someone of the opposite sex. Well of course. Just like Negroes would marry someone of the same race–according to Virginia.
When we deviate from that catch once, why should that be the only exception?
Such as–what? Polygamy? It might have escaped your notice, but the fact is that polygamy was dealt with by the US Supreme Court in 1878 in REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Age? That can be taken care of with time–the parties would just have to wait until both of them were of age, and if, at that point, they wanted to marry, they could. Degree of consanguinity? That can be justified by dangers of inbreeding, such as described
here
You made it clear upstream that you are appalled that men would like to have sex with other men–and by extension that women would like to have sex with other women (to the exclusion of men, of course). Get over it. The fact, that you apparently wish to ignore, is that men will continue to have sex with other men, and that women will continue to have sex with other women, if they wish to, whether or not they are married, and whether or not you approve.
I also recognize that, to more than a few social conservatives, since it has become impolitic to rhetorically attack Negroes–at least in public–they have transferred their rhetorical attacks to gay people.
Poor Raj, such a GOP hater. FYI, I have been a Democrat for 32 years and only recently left my party because of it’s extreme left stance on everything.
I frankly don’t give a tinkers damn what political party you claim to have adhered to. This portion of your comment is about as dumb someone who suggests that he is not an anti-semite because he has had a number of Jewish friends. I tanked on the GOP in the late 1980s because it had become clear to me during the St. Ronald, he of Reagan, administration that they were nothing but a bunch of hypocrites blathering on about smaller (federal) government, lower taxes, etc., and it became clear that they were all about expanding the federal government, extending corporate welfare, and borrow-and-spend liberalism. All the while bashing fags, of course–as with Patrick “I’m a Catholic Without Children” Buchanan’s “culture war” speech in prime time at GHWBush’s correographed 1992 Republican National Convention.
#31 Ed of Tampa — July 13, 2006 @ 7:05 am – July 13, 2006
Well that is exactly my point under a civil union, having sex with the other party does not even have to be mentioned.
Why thank you for the information. Now, I’m sure that you will let us know whether, when one is applying for a marriage license, either party “having sex with the other party” is mentioned at all. It certainly wasn’t when we applied for our marriage license in Massachusetts. Maybe things are different down South.
#29 Thomas More — July 12, 2006 @ 8:41 pm – July 12, 2006
I think the most important thing to emphasize in the marriage debate is that civil marriage in this country is a legal contract between two people, nothing more.
Preposterous. Civil marriage in this country is a legal arrangement among three parties, the two people who become married, and the state. That was made clear in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion in the Goodridge case. Marriage is not a contract.
Two people can make contracts–although perhaps not in Virginia–but their contracts do not amount to a marriage.
Raj: Forgive my inexact wording. My point stands. Civil marriage doesn’t involve any of those things “traditionalists” say it does: monogamy, child rearing, etc. I believe it’s those people who want “special” rights, because they want to reserve “marriage” for themselves only. So, of course, do people who don’t want to admit blacks or jews to their country clubs. Unfortunately for them, American society is not a country club.
#20 GayPatriotWest — July 12, 2006 @ 11:54 am – July 12, 2006
Oh, my, where to begin.
To pull out a line I use quite a lot, raj, obviously you didn’t read the post.
Actually, I did. I also read between the lines–based on my experience elsewhere by reading in the conservative blogosphere (including the ridiculously-named FreeRepublic.com, and even some of the comment threads here)
You claim that “According to the post, all same-sex couples have to be holier than thou, purer than the driven snow . . .” I never said that. In this post, I was talking about the debate on gay marriage and how, by and large, both sides have failed to address two issues paramount to the institution of marriage.
Regarding the obvious implication of the latter, that opposite-sex couples are supposed to address the issues (by which I presume that you mean monogamy and divorce), the point should be obvious that they aren’t going to. Opposite-sex couples are generally quite satisfied with the status quo. Just how many opposite-sex couple have taken the plunge and done the “covenant marriage” thing, other than a few grandstanding politicians such as RepublicanHuckabee of Arkansas? Very few. Down into the noise.
Regarding the first part, let’s understand something. Reading between the lines of your post, you are clearly suggesting that gay people are supposed to earn equal marriage rights by cheering Hosannas to monogamy and !divorce, when straight people aren’t required to do so. Reading further between the lines, you are clearly suggesting that same-sex couples are supposed to be “holier than thou, purer than the driven snow…” That is, holier than opposite sex couples who refuse to profess and hold to monogamy and who refuse to engage in no-fault divorce. Contrary to your position, you are suggesting that gay people–in order to acquire the right to marry–are supposed to be holier than thou and purer than the driven snow. Why should gay people be required to engage in a debate that straight people are unwilling or uninterested in being engaged in?
In this post, I was talking about the debate on gay marriage and how, by and large, both sides have failed to address two issues paramount to the institution of marriage.
That’s sweet. But let’s understand something. It is gay people–same sex couples–who are supposedly the supplicants in the issue of same-sex marriage. Opposite-sex couples can marry, so they don’t have anything to worry about. What you are suggesting here is that gay people are supposed to engage–somebody, who?–in a debate that–the somebody, who?–has no interest in engaging in regarding your issues of monogamy and divorce. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Most of the “somebody, who?” is satisfied with what they have, and are unlikely to engage you in debate. You can’t engage in a debate with an opposition that is satisfied with the status quo and is uninterested in debating you.
I don’t know whether you have followed any of the so-called “debates” regarding same-sex marriage, but from what I have seen, they are little more than the sophistries regarding evilution vs. “intelligent design”: the opposition (those opposing same sex marriage, and those favoring teaching of “intelligent design”) have their talking points, nobody is persuaded one way or another, and the whole exercise is a charade. Why bother?
Seems you guys are more interested in attacking Republicans than engaging in a serious discussion of the issues here. Reading George Lakoff for insight into a serious conversation on gay marriage would be like reading Karl Rove for a serious discussion on gun control.
Regarding the first, I guess that you are unaware that much if not all of the majority of the justices Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Goodridge decision was appointed by Republicans. I have, and will continue to–attack Republicans when they attack equal rights for gay people. Capiche?
Regarding the second, I can only conclude that you are unaware of what Lakoff has written. Lakoff’s point has been that the issue as presented in a discussion has to be carefully presented with a view of achieving the point that one side or the other desires. Referring to “equal marriage rights” as “gay marriage” is assuredly intended to ensure that “equal marriage rights” will not be attained.
Try again. And, it would be nice if you would outline your posts before writing them so that they will be a little more to the point and a little less disjointed. They seem to be all over the map.
Now, I’m sure that you will let us know whether, when one is applying for a marriage license, either party “having sex with the other party” is mentioned at all.
Then, since sex has nothing to do with marriage, why are you arguing that you should be automatically allowed to marry the person(s) with which you wish to have sex?
You don’t even realize that you’ve demolished your own argument. Since you are not required to have sex with the person you marry, and you state that marriage is irrelevant to with whom you have sex, then marry a woman and continue to have sex with your partner.
Since sex is not an imperative of marriage, whether or not you wish to have sex with the person you marry is irrelevant.
#38 North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2006 @ 2:29 pm – July 13, 2006
Then, since sex has nothing to do with marriage, why are you arguing that you should be automatically allowed to marry the person(s) with which you wish to have sex? (emphasis added)
This is funny as hell. Citation demanded, with link, of course. Put up or shut up.
You’ve shown yourself at least once as being a liar. Try for a second time.
Raj #15: Don’t forget, the proprietors here are Republican party appartchiks, and most of the commenters here are Republican party apologists.
Raj #33: I frankly don’t give a tinkers damn what political party you claim to have adhered to.
Raj, you injected partisanship in the debate which is the only reason I brought it up.
Raj#39: I think you’ve lost it. You don’t even get what you said in #34.
I guess that’s why they still keep putting Kerry & Kennedy back in office up there, they are such intellects, esp. that Kerry, brilliant man that JFK. Time to move on to something more important. Won’t be coming back raj so don’t leave a mark.
raj baby at #39 writes: “This is funny as hell. Citation demanded, with link, of course. Put up or shut up. You’ve (NDXXX) shown yourself at least once as being a liar. Try for a second time.”
raj baby, if you’re keeping track of lying for partisan gain or debate points, I think you need to keep a low, low profile. Next to Gramps, you are the consumate lying scoundrel –really, I can’t name another GayLeftie who evens come close to your skills set on that aspect.
As for your earlier claims of being in a monogamous relationship, I highly doubt it. No one –short of sainthood– could be in a relationship with you and honor fidelity. Monogamy is a value which requires character to be present; sorry, you simply fail that test and prove it here far too often for anyone to believe you are in a monogamous relationship. It’d be like you claiming to be patriotic; it just don’t cut it.
Mich-Matt comes in at mid thread to totally agree with the original post.
Mich-Matt comes in and gives his typical bla-bla-bla ad hominem to the strongest opposing argument.
Bla-bla-bla.
Mich-Matt posts ad hominem against me.
Thread over.
Predictable.
#40 Ed of Tampa — July 13, 2006 @ 9:54 pm – July 13, 2006
Raj #15: Don’t forget, the proprietors here are Republican party appartchiks, and most of the commenters here are Republican party apologists.
Raj #33: I frankly don’t give a tinkers damn what political party you claim to have adhered to.
Raj, you injected partisanship in the debate which is the only reason I brought it up.
Oh, and you believed that my reference in #15 to “the proprietors here” included you? I wonder why you would believe that. Are you a proprietor of this web site? I didn’t see your name anywhere else than in the comment threads. As far as I can tell, GP (Bruce) and GPW (Dan) are the proprietors of the web site, not you.
Raj#39: I think you’ve lost it. You don’t even get what you said in #34.
Thank you for the information. I’m sure that you will be able to tell me what I commented on in #34 has to do with what I commented on in #39.
I guess that’s why they still keep putting Kerry & Kennedy back in office up there…
I’d comment on your nutty senate candidate Katherine Harris down there in FL, but I’ll refrain. You remember Katherine Harris? The Republican former FL Secretary of State aparatchick who botched FL’s election laws so as to put Dubya into office.
#41 Michigan-Matt — July 13, 2006 @ 11:25 pm – July 13, 2006
As for your earlier claims of being in a monogamous relationship, I highly doubt it
Oh, and you’re going to suggest that I’m supposed to give a tinkers’ damn what you believe or disbelieve. Are you going to be like NDXXX and presume to search my and my partner’s brain waves from–what, for you in Michigan is–about 1000 miles away. It’s amazing what wingnuts purport to be able to do.
chandler at #42, I think you need to take some comprehension lessons and put down the drama-is-important-in-writing nonsense.
For you to come in at the virtual end of the thread and lecture someone about a comments made mid-thread (wrong) is laughable.
But then to presume you have moral authority to lecture anyone about calling a spade a spade –well, it just fits your declining notion of what your opinion is worth.
chandler, on second thought, skip trying to do the impossible by learnig how to comprehend… go back to writing that stunning, oscar-worthy screenplay. lol.
raj at #44 writes: “Oh, and you’re going to suggest that I’m supposed to give a tinkers’ damn what you believe or disbelieve.”
Actually, raj baby, from the pace of all your “advice” and dispensing of uninformed opinions to me and others I’d suggest you do care what I and others believe.
Why else would you come here so often, in an arena where you are decidedly called a liar or spinner by so many commentators, and continue to blather on?
It’s because you do care and now, outed as it were, you can’t get back into the safety of that closeted world where you pretend NOT to care. It was a moment of humorous bravdo for you to claim not to care, though.
It’s rough sledding for the GayLeft these days.
#46 Michigan-Matt — July 17, 2006 @ 1:53 pm – July 17, 2006
Actually, raj baby, from the pace of all your “advice” and dispensing of uninformed opinions to me and others I’d suggest you do care what I and others believe.
Poor baby. My reasons for commenting here–or anywhere else, for that matter–are for me to know. And, if you want to believe that you can psychoanalyze my reasons, feel free to try. I’m not going to confirm or deny them. And your psychoanalyses will likely have nothing to do with reality–any more than your legal analyses–but, what the heck. Waste your time. It’s your time to waste.
raj baby, and this comes from the guy who tails on threads to get the last word? LOL… you are a fundamental “waste of time”. No wonder you have to chase ambulances to the hospitals in Boston.