I don’t consider myself a supporter of gay marriage (even though I will effectively be voting for gay marriage this fall) largely because that institution has long served to bring together two people of different genders in a lifelong sexually exclusive union. I have mentioned this notion in numerous blog posts and devoted these two pieces to the topic.
I base my understanding on the institution on my studies of mythology, psychology, anthropology and history. Up until the end of the last century, all organic cultural marriage rituals involved each spouse performing different gender-specific acts. When cultures which defined same-sex unions as marriage, they required one of the union’s partners to live in the guise of the opposite sex and among that gender-defined community, prohibiting him (or her) from performing the roles of his biological gender. (Or otherwise they called it something other than marriage.)
Yesterday, my friend David Benkof (with whom I disagree on many issues related to the marriage debate) comes forward with research that language itself supports this notion of gender difference. He writes that, “Dr. Jay Jasanoff, the chairman of the linguistics department at Harvard [has] never encountered any language without a specific word for mother and a separate word for father.” David has collected further observations from linguistics professors who agree with Dr. Jasanoff, all languages have a gender-specific word for each parent. I encourage you to check out his post.
While David would have us Californians vote in favor of the proposed fall initiative on marriage, I would rather remind you of what Jonathan Rauch’s comment (which I referenced yesterday) that honest advocacy of same-sex marriage “requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change.”
If we’re going to debate gay marriage, let’s do so honestly (as Jonathan does). Gay marriage does represent a significant social change and a redefinition of marriage, or perhaps it might be better to say an expansion of the traditional definition. Whereas once it was limited to different-sex couples, now we’re considering whether to include same-sex couples as well.
And should we do so, we must bear in mind the responsibilities which inhere in this ancient institution.
OK, I’ll bite. WHAT social change(s)?
Please note. Every time I’ve asked this, the answers have fallen into one of these categories:
1) Mere re-statements of the CONCLUSION, such as “Well, it’s changing a time-honored institution”. Also known as (a) making an appeal to tradition, (b) circular reasoning, (c) not being able to articulate specifics.
2) Vague expressions of FEARS, such as “A 1995 study showed that European countries which approved gay marriage have declining birthrates.” Also known as (a) mistaking correlation for causality, (b) begging the question (the speaker assumes, rather than proves, gay marriage to be somehow involved in declining European birthrates), (c) not having any real evidence.
3) Correct, if somewhat trite, identification of net POSITIVES of gay marriage. “It marks the increasing social acceptance of gays.” “The kids of lesbians couples now have the kind of family protections that straight kids enjoy.”
In other words, I have yet to see someone rationally / correctly identify a specific, significant and negative social change that clearly flows from legal recognition of gay relationships. The closest anyone has ever come was Leah the other day. She pointed out that some of the world’s piggier gays are out there adding their voices to the normalization of adultery and sexual irresponsibility. Fine. Point conceded – only in part: those people probably aren’t typical of married gays, many of whom believe deeply in monogamy. What else?
Another one I’ve heard is “It puts on a slippery-slope to polygamy, incest, etc.” – Bull. See point (2). If anything, gay marriage is an affirmation of the 2-person, mutual / exclusive model.
ILC, it’s a significant social change because heretofore, governments have only recognized unions between individuals of different genders as married.
But, a social change isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, Jonathan Rauch who wrote those words thinks it’s a good thing.
See points (1) and (3) above. I understand that before gay marriage, there wasn’t gay marriage. And after gay marriage, there is gay marriage. But, **other than** that – other than the legal/administrative change that gives a small minority (gays) a new and happy possibility – what is the social impact? The real change to society?
Example – Emancipation (ending slavery) was a huge social change. It altered the economy of the South. It altered relations between whites and blacks – ending master-slave as a legal or socially permitted possibility. It cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of lives, altered North-South relations, and Federal-State relations. There, I just specified 5 major social changes from the end of slavery, without thinking. Gay marriage? Not so much. Very little change is going to result from it – other than, again, the potential improvement to the lives of the affected, tiny minority.
P.S. You could certainly argue that gay marriage is an *effect* of the major social changes of the last 50 years.
Per Dan’s suggestion, I’ve started reading The Future of Marriage – too early to have been influenced one way or the other. I’ve read Rauch’s book and think he makes an excellent argument.
I support same-sex marriage and will vote against the CA ban this November. I’ve never understood exactly what “protecting marriage” means vis-a-vis same-sex marriage.
But I cannot deny that it is a significant social change – tradition just can’t be ignored. Tradition is “civilizational memory”.
I also admit that there’s risk with same-sex marriage – the law of unintended consequences. In the 60s, few people thought that the “Great Society” or “The Pill” would have the consequences we see today.
Who, in the 1970s, would have foreseen the iPod culture when the Intel 4004 processor was introduced? Time tends to amplify change – both good and bad.
1) Mere re-statement of the *conclusion*, “it’s changing a time-honored institution”, a.k.a. (a) appeal to tradition, (b) circular argument, (c) not articulating the change’s specific impact on society.
2) Vague expression of fears.
If I’m not mistaken, in academia we don’t say that “language supports” the notion of gender difference. Instead, it’s that language privileges the notion of a gender binary. The fact that all language everywhere reinforces gender binaries in this way would probably be seen as a call to “interrogate” the discourse of language.
ILC, I’ll bite, even though I essentially agree with your argument.
The change from having only opposite sex couple to be married to allowing same sex couples is apparently a big societal change to many, and perhaps still a majority. Yes, it is tradition, but a tradition that is tough to change. Many of the time honored traditions from the Bible are blown off, but people have a tough time with the ones that have sex in it for some reason. So the people who are stuck in the belief that homosexuality is a sin will have a hard time accepting gay marriage. Thus, government is going to sanction sin.
We also have the slippery slope argument, leading to other societal changes, like allowing close family members to marry, marrying children (although some states still allow that), polygamy, or marrying non-human animals or plants. I can understand those who view homosexuality as a sin to have that viewpoint, but pointless, since they don’t want any legal recognition of homosexuality in the first place. For those who do not view homosexuality as a sin, I don’t see the slippery slope. Since I view homosexuality as acceptable, and frankly, no better or worse than heterosexuality, I do see the value of having same sex marriage. Since I (and most people) view pedophilia, bestiality, incest as very harmful, how would marriage result? I also see polygamy as an extension of promiscuity in a marriage, I (and probably most people) would not accept that either. I believe married couples should be monogamous. While I am, for the moment, not endorsing government to make this into law, I don’t want the government to encourage, what I believe is the equivalent of promiscuity, in a marriage. If others want to extend marriage to these other things, let them try to make their case. I believe we made a legitimate case for same sex marriage.
And then there is the change regarding children and families that people use. Although Heliotrope has made some compelling arguments regarding this, I still don’t buy it. Sure, I understand the state’s interest in encouraging children growing up in a stable environment. And I kind of understand not wanting the government to intrude in the cases that couples cannot or will not have children, and don’t want to make laws banning such couples from marrying. But it goes well beyond that. While I’ve heard people encourage couples to have children, I’ve never heard someone say, “damn, I can’t believe this couple is getting married and they can’t (or won’t) have children. I don’t want a law, but we need a movement to stop this from happening.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite, “Aww, look at this couple in their 70s, I’ll bet they’ll look cute as a married couple.” So, I see little, if any on this point, societal change by allowing same sex couples to marry.
I realize there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage. Of course, I have no way of knowing what’s really going on behind the reasons. But I suspect that in many (not all, or even most) cases, it’s a feeling of inferiority (which is sometimes stated as being “different”; of course, not all those who state “different” feel they are inferior). Many times it’s their way to appease those (parents or others) who don’t accept their homosexuality. Many times, the persons are promisuous, and believe that they will not have an “excuse” for their behavior. And yes, there are those without these underlying issues, who legitimately oppose same sex marriage. But these arguments fail just like anyone else’s.
There’s also the fear (perhaps legitimate) that allowing same sex marriage will encourage promiscuity. I doubt that. For many years, gay couples will make up less than 1% of marriages, and may at some point peak at about 3 or 4%. Not sure how this small minority can effect real changes in marriage. If promiscuity in marriage were to be encouraged or given the same value as monogamy in marriage, it won’t be because of gay couples. It’s funny. We hear the arguments that gay couples don’t need marriage to be monogamous (which I agree with in principle), but we also hear how allowing same sex marriage will weaken marriage. And I suspect that these groups are not mutually exclusive. So now (straight) married couples are going to use this as an excuse to have affairs now?
I think the real society change from marriage will be, IMO, the improvement of the lives of gay children. Same sex marriage will be a big part and buttress the acceptance of homosexuals in society. This can only improve the life of gay teens as they enter adulthood. This should help change the hearts of those who still harbor anti-gay hate against gay persons, including their own children, and isolate those who cannot give up the hate. Again, I realize gay persons don’t need marriage to behave responsibly, but anything that encourages and promotes sexual responsibility and monogamy is helpful to society as a whole.
For those who believe that it doesn’t make a difference, I can tell you my story. I grew up where homosexuality was considered fairly bad. Persons who were perceived to be gay were made fun of all the time. Things got better growing up. My parents were never hostile towards gay persons (in fact, one of my mother’s cousins and one of her uncles are gay). Yet, despite the fact that things weren’t even that bad, it was still tough adjusting regarding my sexuality through my first ten or so years into adulthood.* Things are fine now, but I am pretty certain the adjustment would have been much easier had their been a climate as accepting as heterosexuality. I suspect the same would have been the case for most of the gay persons I know. I think back with some of the crap we had to put up with, or some of the silly things we had to do, just to not be hated or ridiculed.
*For those of you who self identify as “experts” in reading between the lines, you would be incorrect if you inferred from this statement I was promiscuous. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
Just thinking, maybe it’s committed, monogamous, heterosexual couples with children that need to leave marriage behind.
It was liberal heterosexuals… through no-fault divorce, serial and open marriage… that began degrading marriage to the point where it became attractive to gay couples with no aspirations to commitment or monogamy.
Maybe it’s time for committed straight couples to create a Super Marriage Institution along the lines of Covenant Marriage, or the Mormon practice of sealing families in the temple. It would be exclusively for committed, monogamous heterosexual couples with children.
From the article:
In addition, a professor at UC-Berkeley who asked to remain anonymous so he doesn’t offend his gay friends, said “I have never seen a language that does not have distinct terms for male parent and female parent…. This is the kind of thing that would make the rounds on the linguistic urban myth mill. ‘Say, I’m working in a language that doesn’t have a word for mother.’ I’ve never, in several decades in the field, heard anyone say such a thing.â€
So?
Well the first thing we can conclude is that the notion that mothers and fathers provide nothing different for children, is a radical, even revolutionary notion in the context of world history. If not, at least a few of the more than 6,000 languages spoken would have only one word for parent. In my mind, that is sufficient reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman. But let’s say I’m wrong and there are other factors worthy of overriding the linguistic evidence that all cultures have always believed children get different things from their mothers and their fathers.
This is so weak, and easy to counter.
First – Throughout human history, almost all cultures have had a dominant religion, and most of those religions have been polytheistic in nature. So, monotheism conflicts with man’s cultural history and, using this style of logic, should be banned.
Second – In many older languages, the article preceding the noun, der, die, and das in the German language for instance, are masculine, feminine, and neutral.
der mann -> the man
die frau -> the woman
das auto -> the car
In English, there is only “the”, which is gender neutral. English has stripped gender differential from its articles. The term marriage is non gender specific, therefore, the act of marrying is non gender specific. So same sex marriage is perfectly fine, as long as the ceremony is performed in English!
PS. The German term for marriage is “die Heirat”, which is feminine. Therefore, it is OK for lesbians to marry in Germany!!!
PPS. I need not remind anyone here that, historically, marriage has been as much about improving social status as it has been about making babies. In fact, without marriage in society, we can still make babies (yay, what fun!) but it would be much harder for the Kevin Federlines and Pete Wentz’s of the world to get noticed.
I am so out of it. Dont really care what you guys/gals do. My interest is more pointed to the demographics of the deal. Let’s see..
Japan is a perfect example… 1.34 kids per woman… sloow suicide and
barely any immigration. I’m kind of new to this blog so what do gays have to say about having kids? Far as I can see your reproductive rate is about zero.
[There is probably some statistic on gals getting sperm from banks but I am too lazy to look it up]
Anyway, research the Quakers.
Want to attend a Big Fat Greek Wedding with all the nephews, nieces and uncles/aunts? Better schedule it in the near future as the Greek fertility rate is 1.34 last I looked.
Guess which group is having babies?
Semper Fi peeps
Geo, actually there is quite a Gayby boom going on these days. Sure for Lesbians it is easier to get access to sperm via a sperm bank or donor. Many male couples are using surrogates or adoption. In cases of adoption – it is often the ‘undesirable’ baby, bi-racial, or slightly older.
One of the things that made this possible is the breakdown of the nuclear family. 40 years ago that is what you had. 80 years ago, if a mother died it was not uncommon for the father to adopt out the children – feeling he couldn’t care for them on his own. I had an old relative to whom that happened.
But with so many divorces, single parents, grandparents raising kids, it wasn’t that difficult for gay couples to join in the mix.
I personally think that a mother and father who are married to each other is the best way to raise a child. But that doesn’t mean that I only accept the best and discount all other arrangements. My question is to Laura Igraham who has now adopted a little two year old girl from Guatemala. How is your raising a daughter alone any different or better than two committed mothers or fathers?
Some thoughts which echo many of ILC’s ideas with a few stray concepts of my own:
1) How to treat tradition. I wonder if one of the reasons opinion is divided on same-sex marriage is that people respond to tradition in varied intellectual, emotional, psychological, and sociological ways. For me, traditional practices are things people should use for the betterment of themselves, other people, and society. In a present moment, people should look at past practices, see what is valuable and works well in the here and now, and reject what worked in the past, but is no longer untile in present times. For example, women were at one time considered property to be given in marriage. Then a better idea came along and women were human beings who could exercise choice in marriage.
The tradition of marriage (as with all traditions) is full of such radical changes. People and society change and traditions need to change with them if they are to be more than historical artifacts. For me, instead of focusing on the significance of the change (change is change whether it be large or small), I think it valuable to focus on the harm that can ensue from both allowing and denying change.
In the case of same-sex marriage, the only thing I hear is fear of some vaguely outlined horrors that same-sex marriage will unleash on the world. But in no place where same-sex marriage is now permitted can any horrors casually related to same-sex marriage be identified.
It seems that same-sex marriage is opposed simply on the grounds that it is a radical change. And since radical change is bad, then same-sex marriage must be bad.
But why is radical change bad? I think an individual’s response to change is more psychological and emotional than anything else, and that sometimes opposition to same-sex marriage is actually grounded in opposition to radical change. If a person is disturbed by radical change — okay. But just asserting that things have always been done this way does not cut much ice with me when the proposed change can lead to positive benefits for people in the present (an attitude that reflects my comfort with change and quite possibly springs from being adopted and growing up in a family viewed by some classmates as non-traditional and not giving a damn for what they thought or letting it bother me. I was raised in a world of love, so that it was non-traditional was deeply irrelevant to me).
The main group of people who get hurt by such changes seem to be those who have enormous psychological and emotional investments in tradition(s) and keeping things as they were (I see this a lot in my church where the old timers have difficulties with new families who bring different cultural ways with them to services and other events).
2) As for the slippery slope — life is a slippery slope every nanosecond. Same-sex marriage does not make the slope any more slippery. What it does do is starkly highlight how fluid life is and that is unsettling to some people.
3) As for younger gays and lesbians. Based on limited evidence, I am convinced that young gays and lesbians who grow up with the idea that they can be married some day will have better life outcomes. I see a huge difference between how gays of my husband’s generation and those of mine think about life, relationships, and commitment. The fact that I married a younger man tells you what you need to know: I just could not find anyone near my age who had the skill set to be in a successful, committed relationship (and those who possessed it already had what I was seeking).
The almost complete death of sex clubs and parties in New York City points to the fact that younger gays are socializing and behaving very differently from my generation. Years ago, sex clubs were social outlets as well as sexual ones. Now that younger gays have LGBT Centers and (most importantly) are not ostracized by their peers, sex clubs and parties have declined which indicates to me (along with my personal experience) that their flourishing in the past was as much out of social need as sexual desire. The mainstreaming of gay life renders the need for this shadow culture moot.
4) Gay families — an issue near and dear to me. I can find no rational reason for allowing gay couples to adopt children and then deny them the freedom to marry. It makes no sense since the action in the second instance contradicts what was allowed in the first place. The line should have been drawn at gay couples adopting. But maybe the line not being drawn there is significant. I think a lot of people want gays and lesbians to lead full lives and see no reason why they should not raise families.
On the other hand, the same people cleave to tradition. Promoting civil unions is one way to satisfy the demands of both tradition and gay families, but they work only in the abstract and not the real world (a consequence of the same word “marriage” being used to denote two distinct rituals — one religious and the other social).
5) My notion of an ideal family for children: one that is loving, caring and committed. I see no evidence that a biological relationship between parents and children guarantee that such a family will occur.
Not quite. “almost all” is different from “all”.
The thesis of the paper is that all language supports this division, not almost all.
Since I view homosexuality as acceptable, and frankly, no better or worse than heterosexuality, I do see the value of having same sex marriage. Since I (and most people) view pedophilia, bestiality, incest as very harmful, how would marriage result? I also see polygamy as an extension of promiscuity in a marriage, I (and probably most people) would not accept that either.
Easy.
You have publicly stated that the opinions of other people, especially whether or not they accept something, do not matter in granting the civil rights of others.
Marriage as you define it is a fundamental civil right that cannot be denied to anyone under “equal protection”.
Hence, whether you oppose it or not, it must be granted, based on your own logic. Indeed, since you have publicly stated that someone else’s opinion as to whether or not something is “harmful” has no value, your opinion does not matter — and in fact, you should be publicly excoriated for trying to take away the “dignity” and “respect” of practitioners of these things.
Simply put, Pat, your hypocrisy in trying to argue that “most people” oppose these things and therefore they can be banned is made blatantly obvious by the fact that you utterly refuse to acknowledge that most people oppose gay marriage.
In fact, it’s quite the opposite, “Aww, look at this couple in their 70s, I’ll bet they’ll look cute as a married couple.â€
And yet again, the exception is used to argue for the rule and as a way of avoiding acknowledging the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation — and that homosexuality would vanish within a generation without heterosexuality.
I realize there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage. Of course, I have no way of knowing what’s really going on behind the reasons.
Then you shouldn’t state any.
But I suspect that in many (not all, or even most) cases, it’s a feeling of inferiority (which is sometimes stated as being “differentâ€; of course, not all those who state “different†feel they are inferior). Many times it’s their way to appease those (parents or others) who don’t accept their homosexuality. Many times, the persons are promisuous, and believe that they will not have an “excuse†for their behavior. And yes, there are those without these underlying issues, who legitimately oppose same sex marriage. But these arguments fail just like anyone else’s.
But of course, you went ahead and made it clear that, if you don’t support gay marriage, you’re a bad gay.
It’s that sort of attitude of “you’re wrong, you’re always wrong” that leads us to this next statement.
Same sex marriage will be a big part and buttress the acceptance of homosexuals in society.
Especially with examples like this.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.â€
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.â€
Once again, the stupidity of blaming the absence of a piece of paper, rather than a very real and jealously-protected aspect of gay and lesbian culture, is made blatantly obvious.
Next:
My notion of an ideal family for children: one that is loving, caring and committed.
So you fully support and endorse this.
I see no evidence that a biological relationship between parents and children guarantee that such a family will occur.
I see no evidence to your claim that gay marriage will guarantee such an outcome, either.
Simply because one solution is not perfect does not mean that the other one becomes correct. What you are doing is trying to tear down and insult biological families and relationships in order to justify extending similar treatment to ones that are emphatically not.
#15. Leah, I only recently learned that Laura Ingraham has adopted a little girl from Guatemala. Adopting a child is not in a league with an SPCA visit and I have no doubt the Ms. Ingraham has taken the commitment of mother and single guardian very seriously.
I have an up close and personal relationship with the world of the adopted child. So far as I am concerned, the issue in adoption is 100% about the child and in no measure whatsoever about the “wants” or “needs” of the adoptive parent or parents. We have way too many children who are essentially an inconvenience attached to a biological parent.
The notion of “family” has been stretched and warped to the point that Fagin and his loft of pickpockets (“Oliver Twist”) can nearly qualify as a family.
Your question addressed to Laura Ingraham is a good one. (“How is your raising a daughter alone any different or better than two committed mothers or fathers?”)
My unsolicited answer is that so long as the child is the 100% focus, I would probably choose two mothers or fathers over a single parent if that were full scope of the choice involved. Two heads are (presumably) better than one in the parenting game.
By 100% focus on the child, I mean that the adoptive parent or parents must have the dedication, understanding, and disposition to deal with an already formed human life that is not related to them genetically. The child is already a ward of the state so the adoptive parent/parents must be something far better than an alternative choice.
Unfortunately, the state does not do an adequate job in managing its wards and many of the social workers who manage adoption cases are five levels below the worst employee at the DMV.
I have a case study (real case) I use occasionally that involves two mothers. In brief, it goes this way: Delta and Gamma are partners. They agree that Delta will be inseminated and carry “their” child. Legal papers are drawn up to isolate the sperm donor. (Largely of little legal power.) After several years, Delta and Gamma grow apart due to Delta’s general indifference to raising the child. Gamma gets primary legal guardianship of the child, with Delta’s agreement. After several years, Gamma takes the child to church and disavows her former lesbian life. Delta sues for guardianship on the basis that she does not want her birth child raised in a religious environment that considers homosexuality a sin.
At this point, the group using the case study now study the dynamics of the case and argue the various merits, cultural forces involved and wrestle with the moral, ethical and compelling state interests in the whole affair.
My point is that families now come in all stripes and the unexpected curves they can bring to the table go well beyond the addiction problems or indifference or violence or death or imprisonment or divorce of a parent.
Children are not for vanity gratification.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nunc aliquam odio vel nisi. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Phasellus luctus, nulla et volutpat tincidunt, mauris ipsum pharetra ipsum, sit amet fringilla enim dolor vel turpis. Morbi id diam. Nulla facilisi. Aenean accumsan. Donec hendrerit rutrum massa. Mauris hendrerit sem. Integer ipsum purus, tristique a, faucibus sit amet, varius et, nulla. Phasellus auctor, sem ac suscipit rhoncus, turpis elit gravida dui, a gravida justo sem vel orci. In vitae nisl vitae dolor dictum convallis. Curabitur pede neque, feugiat sed, dignissim consectetuer, blandit sed, nunc. Vestibulum non augue vel dui varius tristique. Vestibulum tortor. Donec at diam. In quam lorem, luctus id, bibendum quis, porta sed, justo. Suspendisse elit lacus, vulputate luctus, vehicula ac, consequat a, enim. Nulla facilisi.
Vivamus laoreet tristique diam. Vivamus bibendum nunc vitae erat. Cras justo est, elementum ornare, pretium ut, hendrerit sit amet, pede. Nunc tincidunt sapien et odio. Etiam porttitor, neque id malesuada bibendum, quam leo posuere enim, vitae dictum metus ipsum ut nisl. Aliquam hendrerit odio quis erat. Cras a lectus. Nullam volutpat convallis ligula. Fusce aliquet tempus tellus. Donec scelerisque varius metus. Nulla purus diam, tristique suscipit, lacinia vel, faucibus ac, ipsum. Pellentesque varius odio ut lorem. Ut aliquam lobortis risus. Donec mi nulla, gravida at, fringilla ut, sodales suscipit, ipsum. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;
Sed eu nunc. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nam metus augue, tempus vitae, condimentum in, rutrum nec, enim. Aliquam lobortis urna vitae mi. Phasellus gravida, libero in volutpat tincidunt, elit tortor laoreet orci, nec fringilla magna diam in nunc. Nullam lacus lacus, elementum varius, sodales sed, volutpat vitae, risus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Suspendisse potenti. Morbi pellentesque, dolor tincidunt rhoncus condimentum, purus justo cursus sapien, vitae adipiscing pede nisi in ipsum. Sed in ante vitae magna hendrerit molestie. Fusce adipiscin
Red – that is the best argument for…. or against gay marriage I’ve ever read!!! 🙂
Holy cow – does that bring back memories of Latin class (long forgotten).
NDT: for those who believe marriage is a right, whether or not someone is “granted” a right is not up to the majority: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights”. When the majority can grant and deny rights, you have mob rule.
Pat, who believes marriage to be a right, is not a hypocrite. You don’t believe that marriage is a right – that doesn’t make you a hypocrite.
Regarding the two characters from NY (Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck) – so what? For every example like this you can cite, I can cite heterosexuals who believe the same thing (and worse).
ND40:
It is not that the solution is not perfect, it is that it has not been proven that being raised by biological parents produces better outcomes for children than being raised by non-biological or same-sex couples. It also has not been proven that being raised by non-biological or same-sex couples produces inferior outcomes for children.
I do not understand how the fact that non-biological and same-sex couples can be as good parents to children as biological couples is an insult to biological families. How did the success my mother had with our adoptive family insult her sister and her biological family? I do not understand this notion of insulting families (just as I do not comprehend the concept of insulting Islam or Turkishness).
Holy cow,
This thread is a perfect example of why gay marriage should be rejected. Proponents of gay marriage have given the institution and the ramifications of change so little thought that they cant even identify what the changes would be in the first place.
They want what they want because they want it. They have no idea why the institution exists, why government is involved in it, or why it is important to society in the first place. If they had, they would easily be able to state what the social changes would be. But no, they just pull whaever sounds good right outta their ass, when the truth is they have so little regard for the institution and for society, they are so focused on their own selfish interests, that they don’t even know, nor do they care, what the changes they are proposing are, let alone what they mean to society.
I know! While we’re at it, let’s restructure the entire economy for the “sake of the environment” without understanding what the hell we’re doing, how it will effect peoples lives and completely ignorning all the evidence that it will be detrimental because, hey! even if all this highly-flawed evidence for theoretical “man-made” global warming turns out to be a sham, at least being “green” feels good!
For crying out loud.
You pro-hetero types seem to have already prejudged all same-sex couples to be fooling around outside of marriage.
Marriage used to be little more than a business arrangement. Love came into the equation relatively recently.
As far as I’m concerned, gays deserve marriage more than “straight” people. They have had no chance to do the damage to the institution that “straight” people have done, yet they have all been lumped in with a few who take its principles lightly.
If anyone has seen Latin recently, it isn’t because this thread contains any. Computibus Esperanto ab geeksum anyone?
Have you heard of same-sex conception? That’s an area of stem cell research aimed at allowing same-sex couples to have children that are related to both partners, through the use of artificial gametes – “female sperm” or “male eggs” made from genetically modified stem cells.
Who knows if it is possible, some experts say no, others say it’ll be tried in just a year or two.
The question is, should it be allowed? Or rather, since there are no laws against it in this country, the question is, should it be prohibited? I say Congress needs to make a law prohibiting it and all forms of genetic engineering of humans ASAP, so that we resolve this marriage debate once and for all, and set ourselves on the right course for the future, where people have natural conception rights and all people are created equal.
But however we answer that, that is how we have to answer the marriage question.
NDT: for those who believe marriage is a right, whether or not someone is “granted†a right is not up to the majority: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rightsâ€.
Then, Robert, if marriage is an “inalienable right”, that means that ANY abrogation of it whatsoever is illegal. Hence, immediate removal of the bans on incestuous marriage, plural marriage, and child marriage is in order, because those, being passed by votes, constitute “mob rule”.
Regarding the two characters from NY (Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck) – so what?
Given that the argument is that gay marriage should be granted because it will provide the societal benefit of stopping gay promiscuity, that becomes a very salient example.
It is not that the solution is not perfect, it is that it has not been proven that being raised by biological parents produces better outcomes for children than being raised by non-biological or same-sex couples.
Which is why, in however many thousand years of humanity’s existence, as well as the innumerable examples in the animal world, the overwhelming evidence is that biological parents have raised their own children in clear preference to handing them over to adoptive parents or same-sex couples.
Furthermore, you should be confronting Barack Obama and telling him that parents are unnecessary and that he was abnormal for being troubled as a child due to the absence of his parents, since he had “loving and committed grandparents”, and that’s exactly the same.
Typical. Gays and lesbians try to get around the blatantly obvious by tearing down heterosexuals and by trying to discount the biological bond between parents and offspring — a bond that is so powerful and important that there are hormones in the parents’ bodies that act to reinforce it.
You pro-hetero types seem to have already prejudged all same-sex couples to be fooling around outside of marriage.
First off, Attmay, you’d better be “pro-hetero”, because if it weren’t for heteros, you wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Second off, that first fact is why heterosexuals get treated differently than same-sex couples. You are right that liberal heterosexuals who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility, as well as “no-fault” divorce, have done an enormous amount of harm to marriage; however, what is forgotten is that the vast majority of heterosexuals never bothered to trash marriage in the first place, and in fact are living quite happily within its rules and regulations.
Not so, it seems, with “married” gays.
If marriage is a right then it must have a pre-Constitutional recognition in common law that it was a right. and based on that criteria , the case for same-sex marriage is defeated.
#27: That would defeat all amendments to the Constitution, wouldn’t it?
First off, Attmay, you’d better be “pro-heteroâ€, because if it weren’t for heteros, you wouldn’t be here in the first place.
Just because I was created by a heterosexual sex act doesn’t mean I have to approve of it in principle. At that time there was no alternative way to conceive babies.
Your question is too vague to answer.
#30. Let me clarify. If all rights granted in the Constitution are granted because of, and solely because of, Common Law, does that include all amendments to the Constitution?
If marriage is a privilege, then the actions and beliefs of a few gays who treat the rules of monogamy blithely are not sufficient to deny the extension of that privilege to same-sex couples who are unrelated and of the age of consent. That NYT article is not a representative sample of all gays who wish to marry.
Attmay, you are now free to roam about the universe of “rights.” Have fun and do send a postcard.
ND40:
Biological parents may be the preference, but that did not prevent society from allowing alternatives that produce positive results from being legitimized. Consequently, society must not consider this preference to be absolute since it has allowed and encouraged these alternatives.
As for this bond between biological parents and children, I have never once felt the need to find out who my biological parents were (nor have they sought me out). The same is true for my siblings and for the majority of adopted children I know. The deep and irrevocable bond I have is with the two people who loved and cared for me, not the two people whose genes I happen to have.
Meanwhile, on the “homophobia” front, you should know that adoption was not opened to gays by “society” or general consensus: it was through the courts.
I wonder if gay adoption or single parent adoption were a ballot initiative what the result would be.
My point being that one can not correctly say that
Heliotrope:
If society had a problem with gay families, I would have expected that Florida would not be the lone state to have passed a law forbidding them. Also, I do not know of any efforts to amend state constitutions to prevent gay adoption or of any attempts to undo gay adoptions that have occurred.
What the results of a ballot initiative would be are unknowable, but the fact that there has been no campaign mounted to have any is indicative to me that for a majority of the citizenry the question of gay adoptions is a non-issue.
As for the courts, they are a mechanism of society. If citizens dislike an action taken by a particular societal mechanism, other societal mechanisms exist that can be emplolyed to counteract the action, e.g., the initiative on the ballot this November in California.
Simply put, Pat, your hypocrisy in trying to argue that “most people†oppose these things and therefore they can be banned is made blatantly obvious by the fact that you utterly refuse to acknowledge that most people oppose gay marriage.
Um, since when did I ever refuse to acknowledge that most people oppose gay marriage? The most I ever said was that the trend is moving towards a majority supporting gay marriage.
Okay, let’s put it this way. First of all, I can form an opinion even if my opinion flies in the face of every one else’s opinion.
I’ve stated that, in my opinion, I believe that homosexuality and the proper expression is not wrong, or immoral, and just as legitmate as heterosexuality and the proper expression. (If you disagree with that, fine, that’s your opinion). As such, IMO, we should have the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals. I am fully aware that, in order for this to happen, that either a majority, or at the very least, a significant minority must also believe this to be the case. If that doesn’t happen, so be it. I lose.
On the other hand, I oppose pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and promiscuity. As such I would oppose government recognizing these by allowed such “couples” to get married, or to allow polygamy. If others do find value in any of these things, then they should try to convince others of the value of these relationships, and extend it to marriage rights. But right now, and for the forseeable future, I don’t see even a significant minority of persons who will take that position.
That’s why I don’t lump together homosexuality with pedophilia, et al, and believe I made a compelling case to not lump them together, regardless of whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not. I’m afraid I don’t understand your penchant to lumping homosexuality with pedophilia, et al.
And yet again, the exception is used to argue for the rule and as a way of avoiding acknowledging the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation — and that homosexuality would vanish within a generation without heterosexuality.
You keep, wrongly, repeating that I have not acknowledged the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation. I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation. I’ve stated many times that I have absolutely no problem with couples who cannot or will not have children from getting married, because I’ve never stated that having children should be a prerequisite of marriage. You’re the one that keeps up with the argument of procreation. You’re the one that should be saying, “Yes, this couple in the 70s is getting married. Although I don’t want a law banning them from being married, and it’s only an exception, they really shouldn’t get married, because no couple in their 70s cannot procreate.”
Then you shouldn’t state any.
You’re making me laugh, NDT. I’ve made it clear that what I’ve stated was speculation. You have outright lied and slandered others based on your grossly incorrect suppositions, and repeated them when told otherwise.
But of course, you went ahead and made it clear that, if you don’t support gay marriage, you’re a bad gay.
I’ve made it “clear”? Boy, I hate to live in the world of fog that you apparently live in. Try reading that passage again.
Once again, the stupidity of blaming the absence of a piece of paper, rather than a very real and jealously-protected aspect of gay and lesbian culture, is made blatantly obvious.
You’re making me laugh again. On the one hand you say this, and then on the other you say later on,
You are right that liberal heterosexuals who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility, as well as “no-fault†divorce, have done an enormous amount of harm to marriage;
So, if we don’t need marriage to be committed and monogamous, why do heterosexuals need to get rid of no fault divorce, when marriage isn’t necessary in the first place?
This thread is a perfect example of why gay marriage should be rejected. Proponents of gay marriage have given the institution and the ramifications of change so little thought that they cant even identify what the changes would be in the first place.
This was addressed, American Elephant. Perhaps you don’t agree with it, or believe that as some stated that the changes are limited, with any negatives not enough to ban same sex marriage, while the other changes would be beneficial overall.
I am fully aware that, in order for this to happen, that either a majority, or at the very least, a significant minority must also believe this to be the case. If that doesn’t happen, so be it. I lose.
Then you should state publicly that voters have the right to ban gay marriage and that you will respect that decision.
I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation.
However, Pat, you have not acknowledged that, while a heterosexual couple may be infertile, this is the exception; on the other hand, no homosexual couple, without exception, is fertile.
The reason why is because that destroys completely your argument that homosexual and heterosexual couples are the same and that their potential effects on society are the same.
I’ve made it clear that what I’ve stated was speculation.
I like how Jane Galt outlines this particular tactic you’re using, Pat:
More seriously, surely an attorney can understand the problem with this sort of insult-by-speculation. Let’s try it: Since Mr. Williams calls the Bush Administration a ‘Junta’ I ‘wouldn’t put it past him’ to pull out a gun and assassinate the President. After all, isn’t the correct reaction to a Junta a revolt? Based on his view of the way, I ‘wouldn’t put it past him’ to put Saddam Hussein back in power. After all, isn’t Saddam’s corrupt tyranny the brand of regime he has advocated?
Next:
I’ve made it “clear� Boy, I hate to live in the world of fog that you apparently live in. Try reading that passage again.
And once again, Pat, you make it clear that someone who disagrees with you or challenges you is a bad person. You’re demonstrating my point rather nicely.
On the one hand you say this, and then on the other you say later on,
You left out the portion after the semicolon in my quote; I’ve added it back, in bold.
You are right that liberal heterosexuals who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility, as well as “no-fault†divorce, have done an enormous amount of harm to marriage; however, what is forgotten is that the vast majority of heterosexuals never bothered to trash marriage in the first place, and in fact are living quite happily within its rules and regulations.
Next:
So, if we don’t need marriage to be committed and monogamous, why do heterosexuals need to get rid of no fault divorce, when marriage isn’t necessary in the first place?
As I have said before, marriage is a ratification of the attitude of commitment and monogamy that already exists. However, in a no-fault situation, that commitment and responsibility can be ignored at will without penalty. Hence, no-fault divorce should be eliminated to ensure that, should the attitude of commitment and monogamy fail, the marriage and all its attendant benefits and privileges will vanish.
What it all boils down to is this, Pat. You can’t acknowledge the biological and sociological differences that revolve around procreation and its effects between heterosexual and homosexual couples because you have convinced yourself that difference = “inferior”; hence, you tie yourself into convoluted knots trying to insist that there isn’t any difference. You can’t acknowledge that the vast majority of heterosexual couples are not promiscuous, do honor their marital vows, and look with contempt on promiscuous people because it makes it difficult to explain why gays and lesbians like yourself tolerate such behavior among other gays.
Brian, I take your point, but I still do not think you can arrive the conclusion that
I do not see any evidence whatsoever that “society” has encouraged gay adoption.
I do not think gay adoption is a “festering sore” among the people, but when a significant part of the population opposes gay marriage, I question whether society “encourages” gay adoption. For the most part, I think adoption by gays, singles or straights flies under the general radar.
Heliotrope:
I think that the disconnect on gay adoption and gay marriage reflects the ambivalent feelings people have. On the one hand, they like the fact that gay couples are adopting and making homes for children who have been abandoned by their biological parents (statistics show that gay couples are much more likely than straight ones to adopt harder to place children, a fact borne out in the experiences of my husband and myself). As you note, gay adoptions probably fly under the radar for many people, so an “out of sight, out of mind” ethos applies.
Same-sex marriage is a much more visible issue and roils people. The issue is also nettlesome since arguments against same-sex marriage can also be used against other changes to traditional marriage, and yet these changes have not been systematically challenged. As we spoke about before, the question is why the line has been drawn here when other opportunities presented themselves earlier. The difference now is that gays and lesbians will benefit from same-sex marriage, while the introduction of no-fault divorce benefited heterosexuals, and while many may deplore it, there was (and is) no movement to rescind a benefit that some time in the future heterosexuals may want to avail themselves of.
I will admit to my self-interest in wanting same-sex marriage: it is good for me, my husband, our children, and our community. I just wish heterosexuals would admit that their failure to move against no-fault divorce in any meaningful, powerful, or organized way is an act of self-interest on their part and undercuts their claim that in opposing same-sex marriage they are only concerned about maintaining the integrity of traditional marriage.
NDT: And yet again, the exception is used to argue for the rule and as a way of avoiding acknowledging the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation — and that homosexuality would vanish within a generation without heterosexuality.
NDT, did you know they are working on ways to achieve same-sex conception? They’ve done it with a mouse (google Kaguya), but it is terribly unsafe and unethical. we need to argue against same-sex conception, which is ultimately what same-sex marriage comes down to. We need to get Congress to make a law protecting natural conception rights and banning the experimental use of modified or artificial gametes to make people. There is no right to make people except by marriage.
Pat: You keep, wrongly, repeating that I have not acknowledged the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation. I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation. I’ve stated many times that I have absolutely no problem with couples who cannot or will not have children from getting married, because I’ve never stated that having children should be a prerequisite of marriage.
Yes, but infertile married couples have a right to procreate, they just have trouble achieving it. But they aren’t prohibited from trying. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from trying. Even 70 year olds shouldn’t be prohibited from trying. Having children isn’t a pre-requisite, it is a right of marriage. No marriage should be prohibited from attempting to conceive children together, using their own genes, but every same-sex couple should be prohibited from attempting to conceive children together.
There is no right to make people except by marriage.
Marriage doesn’t make people, boinking does!!!
Someone should point out that grammatical gender is an important aspect of many languages. So that not only is there a different word for mother and father, there is a different word for your teacher who is a man vs your teacher who is a woman. The romance languages divide all nouns into masculine and feminine (including words that have to correspondence to any aspect of gender beyond the grammatical). Other languages divvy things up in various ways.
It is therefore not surprising that all languages differentiate between mother and father. Are there any with no different words for male persons as opposed to female persons? I would imagine that such a thing would be incredibly rare since even small children can tell the difference between male and female with reliable accuracy. (Unfortunately not all people fall into those categories quite so easily but that’s another topic.)
Among the European languages with which I am familiar (I can’t vouch for Finnish, Estonian, Basque or Hungarian), English is unique in that it allows for gender-neutral terminology which leads to all sorts of conclusions (as well as the silliness of gender-neutral liturgy).
All that is to say, I find it interesting as someone who spends a good deal of time dealing with other languages, but I don’t think it means anything in regards to the gay marriage debate.
NDT, did you know they are working on ways to achieve same-sex conception? They’ve done it with a mouse (google Kaguya), but it is terribly unsafe and unethical. we need to argue against same-sex conception, which is ultimately what same-sex marriage comes down to. We need to get Congress to make a law protecting natural conception rights and banning the experimental use of modified or artificial gametes to make people. There is no right to make people except by marriage.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
A lot of stupid teenagers have proven you don’t need to get married to have a baby.
NDT, I responded to your last post, but it got lost. Or perhaps it’s in moderation.
So to wind this down, I’ll summarize. Once again, despite your saying otherwise, I recognize the differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. But since, IMO, the difference between heterosexuals who cannot or will not procreate and homosexual couples is not enough to deny marriage to same sex couples. Further, IMO, I believe this change will benefit gay persons, and society as well.
I respect your difference of opinion here. I do not regard you as a “bad person” because you disagree. What I don’t respect is the fact that for most of this discussion you stated incorrectly what my actions and beliefs were regarding this discussion. My pointing this out several times did not help.
So I’m pretty much done with the discussion here, unless you have a comment or question on what I actually said, as opposed to what you think I meant.
As for the linguistics, I admit to not being an expert. The argument still doesn’t make sense. I’m not sure what the fact that there has always been separate words for mother and father (or other gender differences) has to do with the marriage argument today.
I’ve heard David Benkof before argue against same sex marriage. It seemed to me the basis of the argument was the Bible. It also seems to me that he is using this additional evidence is “proof” that his argument is correct. I also recall him saying that the beliefs and ideology from the Bible (and one other source) are unchanging.
The problem is that things do change. Society changes, people change, institutions change, traditions change, and language changes. All one has to do is follow the history of the English language to see that is the case. The English language (and many other languages) are well accustomed to adapt to the changes when they occur.
And Dan, I guess we look at the definition of marriage differently, but it seems to me that same sex marriage is a contraction of the definition. Depending on the definition, you either need to remove the phrase “of the opposite sex” or at most, change the phrase “a man and a woman” to “two adults.”
Attway, same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to attempt to conceive together, only both-sex couples should be allowed to conceive together.
That distinction in rights should be the distinction between CU’s and marriage, so that marriage continues to protect a couple’s right to use their own genes to conceive. If a same-sex couple and a man-woman marriage have different rights, they can’t both be called marriage.
Just a question regarding this entire canard that marriage is about adults taking care of each other….
when the adults get a divorce, does society get a breach of contract refund?
when the adults get a divorce, does society get a breach of contract refund?
No. Just the lawyers, unfortunately.