From the Post story:
Bishop Harry Jackson, a same-sex-marriage opponent who is pushing for the vote, called the ruling an "insult." His attorneys said they plan to file an appeal today in Superior Court.
"The real human rights issue at stake in this decision is whether the people of D.C. will be given their right to vote," Jackson said. "We are not going to sit still for allowing an unelected board of bureaucrats to deny voters their rightful say on this issue and, by their action, allow the institution of marriage to be radically redefined.My personal suggestion is that Mr. Jackson reread the Loving v. Virginia decision, and well as the Brown v. State Board of Ed. decisions. The fight for civil rights for gays and lesbians isn't the same as the fight for civil rights for Blacks, but the legal portion related to these decisions isn't all that different. The Court in Loving found that it wasn't Constitutional to disallow mixed race couples to civilly marry just because some people found it unpleasant, or an abomination (a pretty radical redifnition of marriage for some). In Brown the Court found that separate but equal wasn't really equal. This was the same basis on which a Massachusetts court found it was wrong to exclude gays and lesbians from civil marriage (think we can all recall something from both decisions about a stamp of inferiority).
Though LGBT individuals have been subjected to much discrimination and violence, I don't think anyone would argue that the official violence from the US government could equal that visited upon African-Americans. But that doesn't, to my mind, excuse anyone from agitating for continued discrimination against any group. To me, that only makes such agitation, considering the past wrongs we all know so well, even worse. I have watched and listened to many shows, emails, forums on the issue. I'll agree with a recent commentor (he was speaking about WPFW's Jonetta Rose Barras Show) in saying that there seems to be a tremendous amount of hatred and bias (in terms of speakers) going on on that show. He said, and I'll agree, that many of those who oppose the State recognition of gay marriage (I'm not saying all) seem to view gays as a kind of cancer on society (particularly during the recent show they spoke of it as a risk to the Black family).
Having grown up in Oklahoma, I'm not a stranger to outlandish ideas about gays recruiting the innocents, or praying upon families (a common idea growing up was that gays reproduced by molesting youth). Such ideas were commonly passed around in circles that I'm ashamed to admit were closer than I'd have ever liked. I went to public school and such doctrine was actually taught to students in some of those public schools (even the reportedly liberal ones that I attended). Though I understand that things have changed for many high school students in the schools I once atteneded, I still shudder to think of the impact upon both gay, and straight (and anything in-between) students of such teachings. We taught, and subsidized through tax dollars, hate and ignorance.
Some have objected to the recent legislation on the grounds that the Council made law without a vote of the people. Really, they just made sure that we operated withing the existing law. In the 1960s courts did the same thing through their intepretation of the law. If it hadn't been for the courts, racial segregation might have wrongly persisted for a much longer period. Racial discrimination was wrong then, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and who you fall in love with, is equally wrong now. Then, as now, some churches embraced love and equal rights, while some objected, claiming biblical justification for discrimination. I hope that we can correct our wrongs and learn from them. Now is not the time to repeat our mistakes and rebaptise ourselves in ignorance and bigotry.
119 comments:
there has got to be more important things than same sex marriages for these folks to spend their energy on. i understand marion barry has tried more than one union to help himself understand the sanctity of "traditional" marriage but as an almost life long resident of the district i think there are other things these folks could spend their energy protesting and or fixing. i am more concerned about parking at the auto zone lot than whether or not two dudes want to get married. that bishop will get no free whiskey at the pug.
I saw that the minister will be filing suit to challenge the decision.
I thought that he didn't live in the District therefore how does he even have standing to do so?
Amen, Inked.
i thought it was GLBT.
Tonyt, I agree with all your points except one:
"i am more concerned about parking at the auto zone lot than whether or not two dudes want to get married."
re: the minister challenging the decision -- the Blade found out that he very recently changed his voting registration to DC from Maryland and lists an apartment in Shaw as his new legal residence.
Of course they also found that he and his wife still live in a million dollar home in Silver Spring.
http://www.washblade.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/14674.cfm
As a Republican -- and a frequent reader of this blog -- I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes as long as they don't hurt anyone else. My understanding is that the current Administration is going to let the "marriage penalty tax" come back -- if others want to pay this tax also, then by all means. As for the minister, follow the money......
As a closet polygamist living in the District, I am disappointed by the unequal treatment that you and the press have given towards homosexuals on the marriage/civil rights front. As your argument suggests, the civil right of marriage belongs to homosexuals, polygamists and anyone who wants to marry any one/thing/s. I hope you, the DC Council, and our culture at large will stop being so narrow-minded.
Polygamy is still illegal (and prosecuted) in 50 states and the District. That is the real civil rights issue of our time. All you homosexualsshould count your blessings and broaden your perspective. The real hate crimes are being perpetrated on polymagists and others.
Tag: Polygamy
I would like to marry my toaster and microwave. Why won't someone let me marry my microwave? I have been in love with it since the day I first made my hot pocket in it. Narrow minded bigots!
I have to admit the why can't I marry my cow or have 7 husbands argument has made sense to me in the past. But the way to look at it is that some people in the US are allowed to marry the one person they want to (with all the benefits that brings), while other people are denied that right. This goes against equal protection under the law.
If you legalized *civil* marriage (I completely support the ability of any church to refuse to do the religious marriage for anyone they want to) you would eliminate this discrimination.
No one is allowed to marry their toaster (civil marriage anyway), and no one is allowed to have 4 wives or however many you want to name (That's a good thing, too. Imagine the State Department paying for your 4 wives and many children to accompany you to post half way around the world, etc., etc.). Thus, no one is deprived of equal protection...these prohibitions apply to all.
Of course that's getting technical and above my head legally. The real reason I support civil marriage for gays and lesbians is that I have plenty of friends who want to get married and can't and I see the forces keeping them from getting married as a direct analog to the racist policies of the past. God doesn't want whites mingling with blacks? Mmmm, right. God doesn't want gays to marry? Please. I think if God had that "top of mind", Jesus would have weighed in on it. Paul mentions men laying with men once I think. I think the great commandment, that we should love others as we love ourselves, should have much greater weight in guiding our actions.
All of you are bigots except for micro marriage person and poly person... you I could grab a beer with. Real people in my book. I want to marry my French first cousin who happens to think he is a Japanese George Washington. I believe I am Che Guevara and I like to dress up as a 19th century Italian immigrant; think Sacco and Vanzetti but with more of a post modern effeminate late 20th century homosexual male resident of Prague look. Now his parents are against our nuptials. Who are all of you to say its wrong to marry my first cousin who thinks he a Japanese George Washington in a French persons body.
INKED---In Oklahoma, did they have "outlandish" ideas about polygamy and beasiality that you disagreed with as well? I am curious to hear your opinion.
While all the idiocy about toasters and beastiality is pretty funny, it's actually quite simple.
You can't marry a toaster or your rottweiler for the same reason you can't assign legal guardianship of your *child* to a toaster or your rottweiler.
(Wow! Does Chrome spell check really have an entry for 'protrusile' but not for 'rottweiler'? Now that's even more entertaining than totally illogical comment-spam that can't wrap its brain around the concept of 'agency'.)
Oh, and one more thing: I know the religious conservatives, and folks on the Right are totally arguing in good faith, and I'm sure this is completely unintentional, but... comparing someone's consensual long-term adult relationship with someone fucking their dog is offensive to some folks.
Just wanted to let y'all know since I'm sure it was unintentional.
Sigh...the "polygamy" slippery slope again. A few responses:
It is true that the what is being asked for in allowing gay marriage (an extension of the traditional definition of marriage) could, in principle, equally apply to polygamy.
However, the reason we won't actually slide that far is that, as a society, we do have certain thresholds we are, and should be, unwilling to cross, based on the varying considerations involved:
1) Consider the rights at stake--With gay marriage, what is being advocated is the right of one person to enter into the same, monogomous, loving commitment as straight people. If you take away that right for gays, you deny them totally the right to marry. If you take that right away for polygamists, you are not completely taking away their right to marry, you are simply placing a limit on it. Therefore, the loss of rights to gays is greater than the loss of rights to polygamists.
2) Consider the relationships themselves--homosexuality is an innate attraction to the opposite sex. You can't simlply decide to be attracted to and then marry a woman because that's the law. Polygamy on the other hand, is merely a preference. Therefore, you can absolutely decide to limit yourself to the bounds of the law and marry only one woman (just as you can drive the speed limit, or pay your taxes). Even if you don't believe that homosexuality is innate, it'd be tough for someone to argue that there's the same amount of "choice" involved in someone wanting to marry an endless stream of women, and wanting to marry one person of the opposite sex.
3) Consider the benefit/burden to society--like it or not, what is "good" for society is going to come into play when we weigh decisions like this. As for what is important to society with respect to marriage, we've pretty much done away with the 'procreation' argument (you do not legally have to have kids once married). We've got mountains of evidence that stable, committed couples produce happier, healtheir people. On the other hand, we have no evidence that polygamist couples are similar and, in fact, due to the inherent jealously in human nature, those relationships are likely MUCH less stable. Finally, allowing polygamist relatinoships would create a greater social burden than allowing gays to marry in terms of insurance, tax and estate considerations.
So while there are some similarities in principle, for theses reasons, we do not really run the "danger" of going down the slippery slope into polygamy simply by allowing gay marriages. There are many obstacles to its legalization which would most likely prove sufficient should anyone actually attempt to make the argument.
"Consider the relationships themselves--homosexuality is an innate attraction to the opposite sex. You can't simlply decide to be attracted to and then marry a woman because that's the law. Polygamy on the other hand, is merely a preference."
Right, but that's why homophobes cling so desperately to the debunked belief that "It's a choice!!!" So you won't convince them with that argument.
But I would point out that *religion* is completely and totally a choice, and there's no one out there arguing that two *Baptists* shouldn't be allowed to get married.
After all, you can still marry any non-Baptist you like, right? So what's the problem?
ibc -
No need to get snarky, this is a reasonable debate that can be decided through reason and logic right?
I understand the concept of agency and it defeats itself when it is deployed. If you’re a relativist who or what is the determinant of agency? Society? The government? Psychology? If that's the case than can't both society and the government set the terms of who should and shouldn't marry? Why should someone be prohibited from marrying their mother or father if they so choose?
Given that, your question of agency does not tackle the original question from the polygamist. All players in a polygamist “marriage” are able to provide informed consent.
Polygamy is outlawed because we have decided to prohibit cruel and unusual punishment
I'm here all week, try the veal at Horace & Dickie's
Anon 9:54 am,
Although I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate your thoughtful argument and the clarity with which it was delivered. I can tell that you have spent time thinking through this critical issue. The position maintained by INKED in the original post and by many in the homosexual community is that marriage is a civil right and that their struggle is akin to those of the African Americans in the latter part of the last century. If you restrict the civil right of marriage only to homosexuals and heterosexuals based on any argument from social burden, will of the majority, size of the minority or cost to society then you deny your premise and your argument fails. If it is a civil right, then it must be applied equally whether you are bisexual, polygamist…or any other deviation from tradition.
Question—Should bisexuals be forced to choose one spouse/sex or should they be able to marry one man and one woman if they so desire? Argument sans "cost to society, et. al," por favor.
@anon / 10:04:
No need to get snarky, this is a reasonable debate that can be decided through reason and logic right?
Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping everyone straight here: were you the Anonymous that was likening civil unions/marriage for homosexuals to marrying a toaster, or a different Anonymous?
All players in a polygamist 'marriage' are able to provide informed consent.
I suppose the obvious point is that there's nothing discriminatory about forcing you to choose which toaster you wish to marry.
If I have a birthday party for my 2 year old, I think everyone there would understand that the rule "everyone gets one slice of cake" is fair, whereas the rule "Becky cannot have three slices; only one" is not.
On the other hand, we're not arguing on one of those shouty cable-news shows, so I can say pretty unambiguously that I don't have a big problem with polygamy, so long as there's no coercion.
(Just so you know the Depths of Evil to which some heathens would lower the Sanctity Traditional Marriage.) ;)
11:43--
Do you mean can a bi-sexual marry two people at once? Wouldn't that be polygamy and fail for the same reasons I suggested earlier?
I don't think that someone being a bi-sexual would justify polygamy. You would still only be allowed to marry one partner, and you'd have to choose between mutliple members of the opposite sex to whom you are attracted just like anyone else--I'm sure you have been attracted to many women (or men--don't know your gender) but you can only marry one person, you know?
--9:54
(9:54, continued from earlier post)-
In addition, to me, your claim that this ceases to be a civil rights issue if we dont' extend it to polygamists, places "homosexuality" and "polygamy" on the same playing field as either (a) lifestyle choices, or (b) innate characteristics.
If you argument is (a) they are both lifestyle choices, I find that view unsupported by any scientific evidence and everyday experience. Can you remember the time when you "chose" to be straight? If sexuality is a truly autonomous choice, it'd have to go both ways (no pun intended).
If you argument is (b) they are equally innate, I find that illogical because a homosexual might want to marry multiple partners too, so polygamy isn't a separate "sexual orientation" so much as it is a preference regardless of sex (although, honestly and historically, mostly it's a misogynistic desire to bang as many chicks as a man can without infedelity).
--9:54--oh screw it,
--James
I understand the concept of agency and it defeats itself when it is deployed. If you’re a relativist who or what is the determinant of agency? Society? The government? Psychology? If that's the case than can't both society and the government set the terms of who should and shouldn't marry? Why should someone be prohibited from marrying their mother or father if they so choose?
Could you unpack this a bit? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Not to get too far down the rabbit-hole, is it that we cannot determine whether toasters (or microwaves, or trees, &tc...) have human agency? And what does being a "relativist" have to do with it?
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
--- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gays should be able to muck up their lives with marriage the same as anybody else.
You KNOW DivorceTV would be a lot more interesting.
James, it sounds like your argument comes down to whether or not homosexuality is innate or a result of conditioning. Research suggests that homosexual behavior is both developed in early adolsecence (innate) and in the later stages of adult life. Moreover, human sexuality is more complex than simply being either innate or conditioned. Humans experience thousands of different sexual impulses in their lifetime. To define sexuality as homosexuals would have you is simplistic to say the least. It is not an either/or question. Humans make a choice on which impulses to act on and which to suppress often based largely on what society defines as acceptable sexual behavior. For example, some homosexuals accept the christian tradition towards bestiality and polygamy but reject the part about homosexuality. Sexual behavior is not innate and to say so, as the research suggests is simplistic.
Now back to the civil rights question...looking forward to hearing your response! I am so glad we have such diversity on the H street corridor!
I vote to outlaw all marriages.
My dog wants to marry the Atlantic ocean. He wants to know when this will be available?
Speaking as a gay man in a long term relationship, I can tell you all that comparing my relationship to fucking your dog or your dog marrying the Atlantic Ocean or marrying a toaster is pretty darn insulting. And it's not even funny, not even in a moronic 12 year old adolescent way. And I dare say none of you have the balls to make such statements to my face.
Beyond that, the argument that sexuality is a choice is absurd. How many of you would really be comfortable with an 'exgay' marrying your baby sister?
Pedophiles contend not to have a choice either. Serial adulterers often speak of having no choice in the matter. What's your point?
I'll go with Hillman on this one. Those kinds of arguments are absurd. In high school I briefly took debate and one of the debaters was a guy named Teddy. Teddy was a nice, and very bright guy. He was also extremely religious in a stands out in Oklahoma type way (so very conservative in his beliefs, and very vocal). But Teddy was never hateful, and he wouldn't have made the arguments that some are now making because he would have seen the flaws.
He had a pretty good grasp of the separation between church and State. Back then a bunch of us used to debate the sodomy laws in Oklahoma over post-movie late night coffee and pie. He didn't want to repeal them because he thought that such a move would send the message that homosexual behavior was ok (he thought it was wrong, but that civil society should tolerate it). He did, however, view the sodomy laws as very unfortunate, and he often said that they never should have been passed.
That kind of debate I can have because it is well reasoned, respectful, and well thought out. The dog fucking and toaster/mother marrying...not so much.
I'm pretty sure that Teddy would still oppose gay marriage, but on the grounds stated above, not on some nonsensical slippery slope argument involving copulating with animals and kitchen appliances.
So, to Chris from above, some people from Oklahoma did have outlandish beliefs, but I wouldn't justify Teddy's beliefs as outlandish. Just deeply personal, honest, and his own that he didn't think the government ought to impose upon others (that non-repeal issue [which I think could he could have been won over on] aside).
Um, Anon 9:09,
pedophiles have a compulsion that leads them to have predatory non-consensual encounters with children (who couldn't give legal consent even if you were to perversely assume that they wanted to do so).
Serial adulterers aren't seeking to form a legal union with those other people.
What's your point?
Anon 9:09,
did you just forget to somehow tie this to rape as well?
Now isn't this ironic! Let's post this in the Blade.
We've really come full circle now.Homosexuals are becoming moralistic about sexually deviant behavior. Theirs is okay but we'll draw the moral line right here, just thanks! On what authority do you dismiss bestiality?
Let me tell you--as offended as many of you seem to be about comparing homosexuality with bestiality, polygamy, bisexuality, et al, many are equally as offended about 2 men, shacking up, touching one another's anuses and calling that marriage. Why is your moral indignation better than theirs?
Come on guys, don't get all moralistic on us! Weren't you the ones asking them not to impose their morals on you?
CONSENT.
10:52,
in no way does allowing civil marriage between two consenting adults lead to some kind of imaginary slippery slope to polygamy. As for bi-sexuality, it doesn't seem that you understand it. Legalizing gay marriage would make it so that bisexuals could marry the man, or woman of their choice. Shouldn't that make them happy? If you are suggesting that bisexuals want to marry more than one person...WHAT? Trying to marry more than one person of any sex would be polygamy.
Speaking of Loving v. Virginia, the arguments that the anti gay marriage crows are making here are the same arguments that the bigots who opposed interracial marriage made in the 60's. Nice company you keep, people--truly the desperate arguments of hate being passed by in history.
Inked, I happen to know that canine bestiality is a serious problem in this city...Here are some softballs....On what authority do you dismiss this type of sexual deviance?
And likewise, how do you answer the polygamist from above. On what athority do dismiss them?
What makes your moral indignation superior?
I am just curious to hear your rationale because it all sounds familiar...in an ironic way.
in no way does allowing civil marriage between two consenting adults lead to some kind of imaginary slippery slope to polygamy.
why?
Inked---I love your blog. You do a great service to the community by all the hours you put into this.
Your argument is falling apart here, though. The civil rights argument for homosexual marriage is predicated upon the idea that sexual behavior is akin to race in that individuals do not have a choice in either matter. To say that homosexuality is entirely innate is only partially true and therefore you cannot compare it to race. As much as it might be a stretch to compare homosexuality with bestiality, you have to admit that comparing race and sexual behavior is going too far. The two lack the similarity that an adequate comparison needs.
To the earlier person's point, I cuncur, many people feel as though they have no choice in their sexual behavior...even pedophiles and adulterers...and to that extent they are like the homosexuals who say they have no choice.
@the-cloud-of-stupidity-coalescing-around-the-anonymous-signature:
Let me tell you--as offended as many of you seem to be about comparing homosexuality with bestiality, polygamy, bisexuality, et al, many are equally as offended about 2 men, shacking up, touching one another's anuses and calling that marriage.
I agree: I'm offended by the idea of a man and a woman rubbing their moist woo-woo's against throbbing hoo-hah's. Absolutely disgusting! I can't stop thinking about it!
While we're on the subject of sexual deviance...thanks for your entertaining contributions, whichever anonymous you happen to be.
It boils down to this: for normal well-adjusted folk, it's about relationships; for the drooling, deviant, oddballs with a permanent hard-on like Anon, it's always about the icky icky body parts.
Oh, and the kind of thinly veiled potty-insults that my two-and-a-half year-old would be embarrassed to indulge in.
To say that homosexuality is entirely innate is only partially true and therefore you cannot compare it to race.
Even if your tenuous assertion is true, let's look at it this way:
While a black woman may not be able to change her "race", she certainly can choose who to marry. Surely there's no reason to repeal anti-miscegenation laws when there are millions of other potential black husbands out there to marry.
Couple that with folks like Anonymous' natural Bible-based revulsion towards the idea of mixed-race babies and you've got a pretty compelling argument against Virginia v. Loving, right?
Anon 8:52, (though I'm assuming you are the same anon posting each time in opposition)
You say--
"To say that homosexuality is entirely innate is only partially true and therefore you cannot compare it to race"
I suppose that your argument here (as I believe you made earlier above) is that sexuality is part-innate, part learned (nature/nurture). In other words, it is distinguishable from race and gender, from a genetic standpoint. That may be true. To be fair, though, I don't think the argument has been quite as "put to bed" as you seem to think it has regarding homosexuality.
You seem to imply that sexuality at all is both genetic and learned and, moreover, exists in this gray-area spectrum of varying sexual desires across the board.
But, are you saying, therefore that YOU are attracted, to some degree, to your same sex? Or, moreover, that your attraction to the opposite sex is a "learned behavior"? If so, then why should we protect your right to marry anymore than anyone elses? What makes the fact that you fell on one end of this behavioral spectrum the "right" way, and a gay person's the "wrong" way?
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that sexuality is this broad, multi-source trait that everyone experiences, and then say that they way you "turned out" is the only one worth being protected.
And it IS like race from my point of view because, until you show me any sort of evidence that gay people can "will themselves" to be attracted to the opposite sex, anymore than you could will yourself to be attracted to the same, I will stand by my assertion that sexual preference is just as static as race or gender.
To your other repeated point, please stop bringing up bestiality, pedophilia, adultry and polygamy. They are easily distinguishable:
1) Bestiality - consent is the key. Plus it is a "deviant" lifestyle (yes--more on that in a minute)
2) Pedophilia - not that this needs saying, but consent is, again, the huge issue here. Plus, another "deviant" lifestyle.
3) Adultry - Um, as far as I know, this is not illegal. I don't get your point here.
4) Polygamy - a "deviant" lifestyle, for the reasons I've already addressed above.
About "deviant" lifestyles. A "deviant" lifestyle is one that deviates from the norm in a way that is harmful to society. Not just "different" it must also be "bad".
Pedophiles and beast(ophiles?) sexual preferences leads to victimization of a defenseless being. And I've dealt with the social ramifications of polygamy above. It is very simple, therefore, to draw a line between those and homosexuality EVEN THOUGH you may be right from a behavioral standpoint that these preferences, from a base line, all deviate from the "norm".
So, even if you are correct that this whole argument comes down to sexual preference and that being sexually attracted to dogs and kids is somehow on the same level as homosexuality, so what? Why can't we still draw the line (at consent, or whatever other line we choose) to deliniate what is good or bad for society?
In all your arguments trying to equate various sexual preferences, you have still never put forward any argument as to why denying rights to homosexuals benefits society? Or how gay lifestyles harm society? This is absolutely the right question to be asking and all the other attempts at simply analogizing various sexual preferences from a very base level do not address this issue.
--James
11:48,
I'm done answering intentionally asinine and insulting questions for right now.
You may not be able to tell it from this thread, but I'm actually heartened by the support I see in the community for gays and lesbians.
Yes, we have some haters out there. But I routinely see people that we would perhaps think would be 'towing the party religious line' on gays be quite open and accepting.
In particular, a lot of elderly women in our community (black, white, Asian, and everything else) have been wonderfully supportive, both during the AIDS crisis years (and AIDS is still around, folks) and just generally.
And for that I am grateful.
towing the party religious line
"Toeing the line" ya big gay dummy.
;)
I suppose I wont make many friend here, but before I present my thinking I would first like to state that I’m appalled by the responses from some of the people here.
QUESTION:
1. About "deviant" lifestyles. A "deviant" lifestyle is one that deviates from the norm in a way that is harmful to society. Not just "different" it must also be "bad".
2. In all your arguments trying to equate various sexual preferences, you have still never put forward any argument as to why denying rights to homosexuals benefits society?
IN RESPONSE
Marriage is a public institution. There is a benefit to be derived from marriage. The evidence is clear. Can we come to a consensus that children that come from broken homes are more susceptible to fall into the trap of guns, drugs, and crime? I would posit that a stable home environment with two loving and committed parents has a greater likelihood of fostering responsible citizens. That said we should encourage these types of relationships. Marriage is a legal, moral, emotional and societal pact designed at its core to benefit society.
As a result, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to objective analysis. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society.
The progenitor of marriage in a strict sense is from the Judeo-Christian traditions and was a blessing bestowed on a couple for the purpose of procreation. I would argue, our society is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think we can all agree that this definition has changed particularly in during the 20th century.
I would argue that due to changes in societal attitudes, and in particular the introduction of “no-fault” divorces, the divorce rate has skyrocketed. Regardless of the factors contributing to the high rate of divorce— I think we could all agree that we have a high rate of divorce.
Marriage involves very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. It takes more than feeling to hold a marriage together. The societal, religious, and legal component when woven together with the emotional forms a solid bond that is less likely to be broken than say emotion alone.
As a result our societal shift in the thinking of marriage over the 100 years I cannot in good conscience support any further reinterpretation of marriage.
If I can try and interpret what are frankly rude and childish comments made by those in my camp, they are asking what is the definition of marriage? I would say it is a bond meant to strengthen the family and inserting a relationship that cannot bear children takes away from the that definition. For that reason alone I cannot support homosexual marriage.
Peter
Well, Peter, according to your definition, my husband and I should not be married even though we're a heterosexual couple because we don't have children and have no intention of having children (he's 54, I'm 49).
Peter,
This may not necessarily refute your point, so much as expand on it, but we've long since done away with the idea that "marriage" and "child-rearing" go hand-in-hand, much less "child-bearing".
A married couple isn't legall required to have kids. We allow sterile people to marry.
Would you require couples to have children to marry? Would out outlaw marriages of sterile couples? If so, that's a bit too totalitarian for my taste.
And, if not, then tell me how a loving, committed, gay couple wouldn't provide "a stable home environment with two loving and committed parents". Why, in that scenario, must the parents be of opposite sex?
I agree with you that most research bears out your assertion that, in terms of raising kids, kids from broken homes suffer, on the whole, more than kids from stable families. But, despite this, we do not go so far as to deny a single mother the right to have a kid.
And with respect to gays as parents, we have FAR less data on the ultimate outcomes to children raised in gay households.
So, if your primary "defense of marriage" argument is its effect on children, why would we deny gays the right to try to marry and start a family when we already allow single mothers to raise kids, we already allow sterile peopel to marry, and having children is not a legal requirement of marriage?
What if all that matters in terms of child development is a child seeing a stable relationship that allows it to form and emulate necessary social bonds at a very young age? If that's what is important, wouldn't gays marrying be better than single motherhood?
The whole "it would destroy the institution of marriage" argumetn always really perplexes me.
Would allowing gays to marry erode the institution of "marriage" any more than divorce, or children out of wedlock, etc., do already? Wouldn't it, in fact, STRENGTHEN the instituion by allowing more people to take part in it?
As a final matter, I don't believe that whether or not our traditions were foudned upon judeo-christian principle bears any real relation to this argument. Just because that's "the way it was done" doesn't mean that's "the way it should be". Look at how much we've overcome as a society in just the past 40 years by rejecting the backwards thinking of those that came before us.
Like it or not, we live in a society that is so diverse, and which purports to be inclusive and open, to the point now where we can't realistically fall back on the idea of "judeo-christian" principles as a justification for discrimiation.
BTW--This is all without the point that religion in general should have no bearing whatsoever on a federal/state rights argument anyway, but that's another issue.
--James
Lou -
As I said, the meaning of marraige has changed. I do not support any further chage.
Peter
And let's not forget, allowing gay men and women to marry and create these stable partner pairs will create so many new opportunities for children in need of adoption.
Everybody wins!
(Well, except the homophobes out there who equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I'm sure their heads explode with the thought.)
James -
You make very good points. I believe this to be a secular argument. By stating the Judeo-Christian lineage of marriage I was attempting to illustrate the evolution of the definition of marriage. That's the way it was done, and that's the way it should be --when stated without any evidence to back it up is a ridiculous statement. I am simply arguing that families, as a unit, were much more stable 100 years ago. The definition has changed, the effect, I would argue, has been detrimental.
Peter -
Hillman - damn straight (heh. heh. he said "straight") there's support for the gay/lesbian community out here.
We're talking about my friends here...and I think that's part of the problem. I personally have never met a conservative that had these types of anti-gay views who also had real gay friends. After all, how do you sit down over a cup of coffee or a beer, and ask your friend, "Did you choose to be gay?" and when they say no, ask them, "Do you love your boyfriend?" and they say yes...how do you then look them in the eye and tell them you believe they're a deviant and not worthy of basic rights that most other people enjoy? It's hard, if they're really your friend. I know some conservatives do that--some closeted gay politicians even do it to themselves. But for most people that's a place where they start questioning their beliefs. I've found that most people who hate the "other" have no real experience with the "other".
Peter,
Ok I see your argument now with the judeo-christian idea. Appologies.
Well, there's no denying that the institution of "marriage" has undergone a significant shift (along with the deterioration of families) over the past 100 years. Whether that's correlation or causation, I'm not sure (and which had the greater/first effect?)
However, for better or worse, that is the world in which we find ourselves now, and we can't really go back, not as I see it. Marriage is simply no longer about having and/or raising children, it is about the relationship of the two people involved.
But I even agree with you that the "family" is an important institution in our society and its deterioration is the cause of many of our social ills.
However, where we're having a disconnect, it seems, is that I can't for the life of me figure out what would be "wrong" (not non-traditional, but objectively "bad") with two gay people marrying and starting a family?
The stability and love offered by a family isn't so BECAUSE of the opposite sexes involved. It's the closeness of the group, the day-to-day interactions, the built-in-support network--none of which seem even remotely dependent on 1:1 "penis/vagina" ratio.
I'm not being flippant--I really am curious as to what you think would be detrimental about two gays raising a child?
(And this is only addressing those gay couples that marry and WANT to have children--where do the gays that don't come in? How would they have ANY effect on "family units" in any different way than two straight people who chose not to have kids?)
--James
I like James. I completely disagree with his argument (and probably his lifestyle choice) but he seems like a reasonable, thoughtful human being and I can respect that. I would drink a beer with him.
Afterall, I may believe that driving an SUV is foolish, irresponsible and wrong but that does not mean that I hate my neighbor because he drives one. I could even offer him some pretty compelling arguments and tell him that I think he is foolish and wrong. But that does not equate to hate. So, for all of you out there pulling the "hate card" RELAX and stop being so sensitive.
Rob said, "We're talking about my friends here...and I think that's part of the problem."
Rob, with all due respect, I hear where you're coming from because "some of my best friends are black."
We need for people to DO more than sit down over a cup of coffee or show your support on a neighborhood blog. While it is an important start, we need for people to be more involved. Sadly change is not going to come from gay people it will ultimately come from heterosexual advocates. If you really care, please get involved.
So Anon. 2:03, do you liken homosexuality to being like that SUV - "foolish, irresponsible and wrong?"
You said you would have a beer with James because he was a "thoughtful human being." What if James thinks that those who drink beer are foolish, irresponsible and wrong? I guess the conversation with such pre-concieved prejudices wouldn't get very far would it?
So much for any real change.
Those on here that are trying to make comparisons between homosexuality and beatiality have more issues with thier own sexuality than they do with other people's.
I wish I knew where these idiots lived so I could keep my dog and my children away from you - or maybe I should more concerned about keeping my husband away. I have more to worry from this ignorance than I do the gay couple that lives next door.
FYI--I like beer, but I think my fiance would be pretty pissed if I were gay.
My personal stake in this comes from having a gay family member, but my arguments would be the same regardless.
--James
"I am simply arguing that families, as a unit, were much more stable 100 years ago. The definition has changed, the effect, I would argue, has been detrimental."
Stable? Maybe.
But marriage 100 years ago sucked for a whole bunch of people. First, women. They were basically property, to be traded off to the highest bidder. Arranged marriages were quite common 100 years ago. And once they were married their lives sucked if their husband wasn't a decent guy.
And of course interracial couples. It's hard to have a stable marriage if your marriage is illegal.
And I've have to argue with the whole 'Judeo-Christian' marriage argument. First off, marriage predates the Bible, in nearly every society on Earth.
Second, be careful what you ask for. Judeo-Christian marriage was pretty terrible. It involved polygamy, absolute subjugation of women, the free and open use of concubines (the 'wise' Solomon ring a bell?), forced marriage of underage girls (what we would now call statutory rape), and even incestuous marriage (Jacob was married to sisters at the same time..... one of whom he did not love..... and God later blessed him as a holy, exemplary leader).
You really sure you want modern marriage laws based solely on the Bible? Really?
I like James too
However, where we're having a disconnect, it seems, is that I can't for the life of me figure out what would be "wrong" (not non-traditional, but objectively "bad") with two gay people marrying and starting a family?
I would point to an earlier comment you made, “And with respect to gays as parents, we have FAR less data on the ultimate outcomes to children raised in gay households.” Why if we’re unsure of the outcome would we want to experiment with children or present them with a maybe scenario? Maybe having two Dads will be good, maybe it won’t.
Peter
Peter,
True, but that seems to be backing into the argument a bit.
If you are saying that good parenting is your primary concern, yet you have no proof that gays AREN'T good parents, how can you use that as the default position?
Now, we obviously don't use statistical outcomes to determine who can and can't be parents anyway. (for better/worse). But, again, if you are willing to deny the right to marry to gays on the primary assertion that they'll be bad parents, shouldn't you have some sort of evidence to back that up? Or even just a somewhat reasoned hypothecation?
For my part, I never said parenting was my primary issue in this debate. Therefore, I'm not arguing the converse of your point--i.e., that gays should be allowed to get married BECAUSE they ARE good parents.
In fact, my point is that it's actually beside the point. So when I cite the lack of data on the outcomes of gay parents, its merely to refute the idea you put forth that they would not be, not necessarily to bolster my arugment.
I am curious if you know any gay people? Does anything about those that you do know (if you do) lead you to think they'd be "bad" parents, in any way that is uniquely related to them being gay?
--James
If there isn't one already, there should be a type of Goodwin's law that can be applied to gay marriages and blogs:)
You really sure you want modern marriage laws based solely on the Bible? Really
I'm unfamiliar with the bible as I was raised an atheist. Although I don’t know much about the bible it seems to me you are negating positive images as well, but I don’t dispute the facts you laid out. I was merely using the reference to trace the lineage of western marriage. Again, I think this is a secular argument. While you make some interesting points I am talking about what is best for society.
But marriage 100 years ago sucked for a whole bunch of people. First, women. They were basically property, to be traded off to the highest bidder. Arranged marriages were quite common 100 years ago. And once they were married their lives sucked if their husband wasn't a decent guy
My great-grandmothers or grandmothers for that matter were not property or sold off. Your point is taken, women were treated poorly and still are to this day in many culture. What we had a hundred years ago were far less incidences of children having children, children being born out of wedlock. I’m arguing that at its core marriage is the best environment in which to raise offspring. Homosexual relationships cannot by their very nature produce offspring. With the shifting definition of marriage came an increase divorce. I do not want to alter the definition.
And I've have to argue with the whole 'Judeo-Christian' marriage argument. First off, marriage predates the Bible, in nearly every society on Earth.
It does. But I am talking about western culture. The word "marriage" derives from the Old French word "mariage" which in turn derives from Latin "maritare" (to marry). It is ultimately traced back and connected with *mas (“‘male’”), Indo-European. Mas referring to the male in assurance as to paternity of his children.
I am interested in a response to anon. 954(?) am. “. The position maintained by INKED in the original post and by many in the homosexual community is that marriage is a civil right and that their struggle is akin to those of the African Americans in the latter part of the last century. If you restrict the civil right of marriage only to homosexuals and heterosexuals based on any argument from social burden, will of the majority, size of the minority or cost to society then you deny your premise and your argument fails. If it is a civil right, then it must be applied equally whether you are bisexual, polygamist…or any other deviation from tradition.” Hillman or James would you care to take a stab at it?
That last post was Peter -
James -
I am curious if you know any gay people? Does anything about those that you do know (if you do) lead you to think they'd be "bad" parents, in any way that is uniquely related to them being gay?
Yes I have and do have many gay friends. They know my position and in some cases support it.
Peter,
I'll be honest--I don't exactly follow the logic of the question regarding the "civil right" issue.
My understanding, though, is that the premise of that argument is as follows:
If the right of people to choose whom they marry is a "civil right", then you must apply it as broadly as you can, thus allowing for polygamy, bisexual, or any other "non-traditional" sexual leaning.
Well, I feel like I've addressed this in earlier posts, but I guess not.
The "civil right" at issue here is the right to enter into a committed, monogomous relationship that is sanctioned by the State (through various incentive structures and corresponding laws and protections). That's all they are asking for.
To argue that allowing gay marriage on a "civil right" basis necessariliy requires that polygamy and bisexuality or beastiality or whatever else also be included, is a logical fallacy--the "slippery slope" argument again.
As I've mentioned before the are clear distinctions to be drawn at each level (and, again, I don't understand the bi-sexual argument--they'd have to pick one or the other just like everyone else).
Am I not understanding your question?
--James
James-
I don't think you know what bisexual means.
See definition 4 here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bisexual
"a person sexually responsive to both sexes"
oops- That wasn't for James. That was for Peter. (the def. of bisexual)
Oh the Camels nose. I guess my response to that would be thathe heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing inference, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D etc…. until one it is announced that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn to each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before a conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done.
I would simply point to: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/ where they state that "POLYGAMY is the next civil rights battle" and that NH’s "Same Sex Marriage" Law "Discriminates" Against Polygamy". I would argue that it’s not a jump in logic based on the assertions of this group. We atleast now there ther eare people out there advocating for it so why would those people who are advocating to not alter the definition of marriage not also argue against that definition as well. Now the bestiality, while not only being quite rude to homosexuals, is a slippery slope.
But you have argued that it’s a detriment to society to allow such marriages. I agree and would extend that to homosexual marriage.
Peter
Peter, bud, you can dress it up however you want, but if you are advocating destabilizing my family by denying me marriage based solely on your nonsensical bullshit arguments to date then you are an elitist and a bigot. Go ahead and admit that to yourself. At least then you'll be an honest bigot.
Me getting married does absolutely nothing to denigrate straight marriage. You straight folks have managed to do that all on your own.
To suggest that maybe 1% of the population getting all gay married is going to ruin marriage for all the straight people out there is stunningly stupid.
Especially since I'm certain I'm correct when I assume you haven't been out there actively blogging about the need to ban divorce and the other real threats to straight marriage.
If your marriage is really so fragile that the very thought of me and my partner getting hitched threatens your marriage then you've got FAR bigger problems than gay marriage. If that's the case I suggest you get thyself to a marriage counselor right this very minute. Schedule a session every day for the foreseeable future.
You throwing in 'slippery slope' arguments about polygamy or other 'deviations' (your word,not mine) is stupid. You take each case on it's merits. Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamy. If polygamists want to fight for polygamy they need to make their own case for it.
It's a bit like saying interracial marriage paved the way for gay marriage. So therefore we should never have allowed interracial marriage.
Not that it's relevant, but I got no problem with polygamy as long as it's truly consensual. As it has been practiced in the US it's rarely actually consensual.
As for your reference to bisexuality, well, that's just stupid beyond words. Bisexuals should get to marry whoever they fall in love with, whether it be someone of the same sex or opposite. If they want to marry multiple people, fine by me but they've got to make that argument on their own.
Civil rights are balanced against any imminent substantial harm to society. Gay marriage does no harm to society. Rather, destabilizing gay relationships by denying them marriage both harms those people directly and makes for a less stable society (aren't stable gay relationships better for society at large than destabilized ones?) For instance, the very same people that are fighting to deny gay marriage are the first to claim that gay men are promiscuous and that that is a bad thing. Well, you can't have it both ways. Marriage is a great way to end promiscuity and to build a solid lifelong emotional and psychological support system with another person.
It's simple, really. If there's not a good reason to deny civil rights, then don't deny them.
Frankly, Peter, anyone that advocates making life harder for me and my friends for no valid reason is a selfish prick. You've dressed up your argument in psychobabble, but what it really boils down to is you don't like gay people, you think you are superior to gay people, and you want to maintain special rights just for yourself and others like you.
Peter - one last thing. You've gone to all this trouble to spout nonsensical arguments designed to deny me and many of my friends basic human dignity and stability in our lives.
The least you can do is pick yourself a freakin' screen name to post under. That way we can have at least some help differentiating your psychobabble from the other crap your side of this argument tends to post. Unless, of course, some of those anonymous postings about sex with your dog and marrying animals are really from you. Hard to tell, really. The company you keep, and all.....
Hillman-your tone suggests that you have much larger personal issues than that you can't 'marry' your boyfriend. This is a reasonable discussion and name calling is juvenile and unnecessary.
I actually posted about bisexuals and given your recent admissions about polygamy, etc, you've made my points more clearly than I could have.
Hillman, government and society do not create nor define (although they do authorize it) marriage and (nor can evolution adequately explain it) therefore they do not have the authority to change its definition. As a previous post mentioned marriage existed long before the Bible was written. Marriage as an institution has existed for at least nearly 10,000 years. Its quite arrogant and silly to change such an institution because of a modern trend and political movement that has existed for maybe 40 years, to be generous.
And to another post's point. Just because something took place in the Bible (Jacob marrying sisters, polygamy, etc) does not make it normative. You can't say, well it happened in the Bible so therefore it must be okay. That is simplistic interpretation and not recognized by anyone trying to do the text justice.
"...government and society do not create nor define (although they do authorize it) marriage."
If government or society doesn't define it then what does?
If society and government didn't allow interfaith and interrace marriages until recently, who changed it and for what reason?
"society and government didn't allow interfaith and interrace marriages until recently"
Really? Are you kidding me? That statement is completely unfounded. There may have been instances of restriction (rarely prohibited) but they have been outliers throughout history and you cannot allow them to define the "population."
Anecdotally, My great grandfather, a German Mennonite immigrant married an Italian Catholic in 1906.
HILLMAN
If your marriage is really so fragile that the very thought of me and my partner getting hitched threatens your marriage then you've got FAR bigger problems future.
PETER
That is an Ad homonym attack. I have refrained from attacking you. Please do so with me.
HILLAMN
You throwing in 'slippery slope' arguments about polygamy or other 'deviations' (your word,not mine) is stupid. You take each case on it's merits. Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamy. If polygamists want to fight for polygamy they need to make their own case for it.
PETER
slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing inference, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D etc…. until one it is announced that A leads to Z. The argument is not valid when the premises are taken as a given. However, it can be valid if each of those premises are factually established before the conclusion. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done.
I would point to: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/ where they state that "POLYGAMY is the next civil rights battle" and that NH’s "Same Sex Marriage" Law "Discriminates" Against Polygamy". It is not a jump in logic to assume that polygamists will pursue marriage as a civil right when the evidence is right there on there website. It can be soundly argued that a polygamist coupling would be harmful to society.
HILLMAN
You are an elitist and a bigot. Go ahead and admit that to yourself. At least then you'll be an honest bigot.
PETER
Merriam-Webster- Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I find your charge of intolerance to be in error. After all, one does not tolerate that with which one agrees; one embraces it. One can only tolerate that with which one disagrees. I may reject a polygamist Mormon sect as mistaken, but I may not obstruct there religious freedom. If, however, a member wants to acquire another wife, consistent with there teaching, he may do so. But he may not require, as an entailment of his religious liberty, that the laws of our community recognize his polygamous union as a marriage. That would require by the force of law that the institutions and members of that community recognize it as well. He could, if he wanted to, change the laws by the legislative mechanisms afforded to him by our system of government. And if he were to be successful, polygamy would no longer be an object of mere toleration, but embraced and supported by the community and enshrined in its laws. Because I oppose it does not mean I’m intolerant.
Peter
HILLMAN
The least you can do is pick yourself a freakin' screen name to post under. That way we can have at least some help differentiating your psychobabble from the other crap your side of this argument tends to post.
PETER
I agree, but that’s a pain in the ass.
HILLAMN
You've gone to all this trouble to spout nonsensical arguments designed to deny me and many of my friends basic human dignity and stability in our lives.
HILLAMN
It's simple, really. If there's not a good reason to deny civil rights, then don't deny them.
PETER
I do not see marriage as a civil right but a social pact.
HILLAMN
Frankly, Peter, anyone that advocates making life harder for me and my friends for no valid reason is a selfish prick. You've dressed up your argument in psychobabble, but what it really boils down to is you don't like gay people, you think you are superior to gay people, and you want to maintain special rights just for yourself and others like you.
PETER
I would argue that you push for homosexual marriage is misguided. Other in my camp might even say it’s selfish to alter the definition of family when it could have a detrimental outcome, but I won’t resort to personal attacks.
I don’t hate gay people. I think my gay friends would disagree.
PETER
Again I see marriage as a social pact not a civil right.
HILLMAN
Unless, of course, some of those anonymous postings about sex with your dog and marrying animals are really from you. Hard to tell, really. The company you keep, and all.....
PETER
This is another ad homonym attack. I am sorry that some people on my side of the debate throw incendiary remarks. There are truely intolerant people on my side of the argument. But for every redneck out there spouting, there is equal ignorance in your camp.
I went to eat in Chinatown, just after the gay pride parade, at 6 pm on a Sunday at a family restaurant a walked into the men’s room and three men were having sex in the stall. Someone complained and the manager kicked all three out. As I walked home I saw a cute baby in a stroller next to two women who I assume were the mothers. As I bent down to say hello to the baby I noticed a penis pendant around the neck of the six month old. The women saw that I paused and laughed. I’m sure you’ll attack me for brining this up. My point is this sort of adolescent behavior only feeds the idiots on my side of the debate. I respect your right to live with your partner and to live your life as you see fit. I do not see marriage as a civil right; I see it as a social pact. I am opposed to redefining marriage.
Peter
What we had a hundred years ago were far less incidences of children having children, children being born out of wedlock. I’m arguing that at its core marriage is the best environment in which to raise offspring. Homosexual relationships cannot by their very nature produce offspring. With the shifting definition of marriage came an increase divorce. I do not want to alter the definition.
I think this is the psycho-babble Hillman was referring to.
I would argue that you push for homosexual marriage is misguided. Other in my camp might even say it’s selfish to alter the definition of family when it could have a detrimental outcome, but I won’t resort to personal attacks.
Some in my camp might say it's selfish of you to *deny* gays the right to marry when it could bring about a tear in the fabric of space-time that would bring our universe to a catastrophic end, but I won't resort to irrational, unsupported assertions.
Jesus, I can only imagine what "all your gay friends" must be like...
I do not see marriage as a civil right; I see it as a social pact.
I'll believe you understand the distinction between these two concepts when you can explain the two, rather than just parroting this as if it has some sort of resonance.
I do not see marriage as a civil right; I see it as a social pact.
I'll believe you understand the distinction between these two concepts when you can explain the two, rather than just parroting this as if it has some sort of resonance.
Jesus, I can only imagine what "all your gay friends" must be like...
You might label one as a log cabin republicans. Two care about the issue but it doen't mean we hate each other. One hates marriage completely and thinks the thought of raising a child is absurd.
I'll believe you understand the distinction between these two concepts when you can explain the two, rather than just parroting this as if it has some sort of resonance.
OK I'll repeat the argument:
Marriage is a public institution. There is a benefit to be derived from marriage. The evidence is clear. Can we come to a consensus that children that come from broken homes are more susceptible to fall into the trap of guns, drugs, and crime? I would posit that a stable home environment with two loving and committed parents has a greater likelihood of fostering responsible citizens. That said we should encourage these types of relationships. Marriage is a legal, moral, emotional and societal pact designed at its core to benefit society.
As a result, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to objective analysis. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society.
The progenitor of marriage in a strict sense is from the Judeo-Christian traditions and was a blessing bestowed on a couple for the purpose of procreation. I would argue, our society is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think we can all agree that this definition has changed particularly in during the 20th century.
I would argue that due to changes in societal attitudes, and in particular the introduction of “no-fault” divorces, the divorce rate has skyrocketed. Regardless of the factors contributing to the high rate of divorce— I think we could all agree that we have a high rate of divorce.
Marriage involves very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. It takes more than feeling to hold a marriage together. The societal, religious, and legal component when woven together with the emotional forms a solid bond that is less likely to be broken than say emotion alone.
As a result our societal shift in the thinking of marriage over the 100 years I cannot in good conscience support any further reinterpretation of marriage.
Peter
Peter,
I am wondering if you could expand on your thinking that changing the definition of marriage erodes the institution? You've so far offered that statement as merely that--a vague statement without clarification or justification.
It's quite possible you have a legitimate argument--your others have been well reasoned, intelligent and respectful. But I think until you offer some sort of even half-guess as to what would happen to the institute of marriage (more specifically, what HARM would be done to it), I think people are going to merely assume that your real aversion is to the sexual aspects of gay relationships and/or rooted in Biblical textualism, both of which I think you would agree are not valid viewpoints in a reasoned debate.
It is possible that all you meant by eroding the institution was your "slippery slope" argument, but I get the feeling that's not it.
--James
I think this is the psycho-babble Hillman was referring to.
Sorry to hear that. I find your arguments incoherent as well. But I'm not mocking you or dimissing them.
Some in my camp might say it's selfish of you to *deny* gays the right to marry when it could bring about a tear in the fabric of space-time that would bring our universe to a catastrophic end, but I won't resort to irrational, unsupported assertions.
It's not that I think the workld will end. If it passes we have a new set of rules and a new definition. I and all my rednech friends will have to get used to it. The evidence I have put forth is that with the alteration of the instituion in the last 100 years, divorce has skyrocketed. In simplistic terms I do not want to alter the definition anymore. That's it. That's all. As I've argued before I think the assertion that the polygamy argument is a slippery slope is invalid.
Peter
JAMES
It is possible that all you meant by eroding the institution was your "slippery slope" argument, but I get the feeling that's not it.
PETER
Yes there is - I think fathers matter. According to data from The Fatherhood Initiative, the impact of illegitimacy is staggering. Over 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates grew up without fathers. A full 70% of juveniles in state reform institutions come from single parent homes. Of those who went on to become adult criminals, 80% grew up in single parent families. School performance is likewise affected. Only 4.4% of children who live with both parents are expelled or suspended from school, but 15.5% of children of a single mother will be expelled or suspended.
http://www.fatherhood.org/
This is why I think the
traditional model works best.
Peter
Just incase anyone is curious or may be suspicious that the Fatherhood Initiative is a religious right wing consevative organization please don't tell that the the Honorary Chairmen of the Ill chapter Richard M. Daley, Richard J. Durbin, Senator, U.S. , Barack Obama, President, USA, Cardinal Francis Eugene George, O.M.I., Archdiocese of Chicago.
Peter
I think with the statistics you cite, it's becoming more and more clear to me that traditional marriage has failed our children. It's time to try something different.
For all the reasons you've made above, it's clear that only gays should be allowed to wed.
To be serious for a moment, I'm going to assume that you believe wholeheartedly in civil unions for gays, correct? After all, surely you'll admit that end-of-life issues, inheritance rights, etc... *are* all civil rights, correct?
Or is that just a slipperly slope to gay marriage as well?
I think fathers matter. According to data from The Fatherhood Initiative, the impact of illegitimacy is staggering. Over 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates grew up without fathers. A full 70% of juveniles in state reform institutions come from single parent homes. Of those who went on to become adult criminals, 80% grew up in single parent families. School performance is likewise affected. Only 4.4% of children who live with both parents are expelled or suspended from school, but 15.5% of children of a single mother will be expelled or suspended.
Jebus, the red herrings around here are getting a bit ripe.
I'm going to assume that you believe wholeheartedly in civil unions for gays, correct? After all, surely you'll admit that end-of-life issues, inheritance rights, etc... *are* all civil rights, correct?
I do
Peter
Peter,
Do you think that your quoted statistics argue more in favor of:
A) The benefit of a two-parent family, or
B) The benefit of male-female coupling?
It seems to me those statisics suggest nothing more than that single mothers, by and large, do not make the best parents.
More than that, though, it's possible that the statistical bulk of women that become single mothers are already in a bad social/economic/health/education situation to begin with, which in turn LEADS to them to be single mothers (as opposed to single motherhood itself being the catalyst for bad parenting).
I don't deny your statistics---I just don't think they necessariliy bear out the point you are trying to make. Thoughts?
--James
oboe
Jebus, the red herrings around here are getting a bit ripe.
PETER
A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
James asked me, “ I think until you offer some sort of even half-guess as to what would happen to the institute of marriage (more specifically, what HARM would be done to it).
My implied response is that both mother and father matter. I used statistics to illustrate the impact a father can have on a family. I’m aware that the case can be made for single versus two male parents as a good example of a stable relationship. I, however see value in both mother and father. No reliable statistics are available regarding homosexual families. I would argue that moving forward without reliable information is akin to experimenting with human beings. We have a model that works and we know that its outcome has a positive impact on the development of children.
Peter
Peter,
Ok--but you say you support civil unions? So you would still have gay couples co-habitating in committed relationships.
Unless, from there, you are saying that you'd deny a gay couple the right to adopt (which you have not, to my knowledge, advanced thus far), we would be left with the following: Two gay adults, living together in a committed relationship, receiving protections and incentives from the government for doing so, and being allowed to raise kids if they so choose.
So, what is the practical difference between that and marriage? Certainly you aren't standing on principle alone? I man, at that point, you're really talking about a distinction without a difference, aren't you?
--James
My implied response is that both mother and father matter.
Right, but your offered evidence (i.e. what the statistics you've cited *show*) is that children in single-parent families are at greater risk.
Not the same thing.
Glad to here you support civil unions, though. Probably could have saved everyone a lot of time if you'd just said so up front.
Civil unions are nice but they aren't the same as marriage.
If they are, how about straight people have civil unions and us gays have marriage?
Peter, you have yet to advance even the tiniest shred of an example of how gay marriage weakens straight marriage in any way.
But I'm not surprised. Because you are arguing a point based on stupidity.
I've debated gay marriage for years now. And not once has someone actually shown any real, concrete way that gay marriage would impact straight marriages negatively.
And given your ramblings so far, I seriously doubt you will be the first.
I stand by my original comment. You are advocating making my life considerably less stable and enjoyable. For absolutely no reason.
So I call you out on that. Only a selfish prick messes with other people's happiness for no reason.
At worst my calling you a prick will wound your pride a bit. But what you are advocating is nothing less than destabilizing millions of gay relationships, making life much harder for us for no reason.
So somehow I think no matter what I called you you'd still get the better end of the deal by far.
And I have to call shenanigans on your horror stories about gay pride aftermath. I've been to way more gay prides than I care to remember, and not once have I seen threesomes in the bathroom of 'family restaurants' afterward.
On the flip side, I've been to quite a few primarily straight events where sex has gone on in quite a few publc places. That doesn't mean I equate straightness with gay sex.
But, then, I'm not the one that's unduly interested in what others do sexually.
And penis necklaces on the baby that a lesbian couple has? Really? You are aware that generally speaking lesbians don't really idolize the penis, right?
But, hey, if perhaps we had gay marriage at least one of those supposed bathroom stall defilers would be home being boring with his married partner instead.
So I'll ask again. Please tell us SPECIFIC WAYS that gay marriage threaten straight marriage to such an extent that they justify us depriving gays of marriage. Until you can do that, it's all bullshit based on elitism and hate.
Dude, Hillman, I am going weigh in with Peter on this one. You are not asking the right question.
You asked.
"Please tell us SPECIFIC WAYS that gay marriage threaten straight marriage."
Let me pose this scenario to illustrate what you are doing.
Suppose, a movement arises in the NBA to add 2 more hoops and a third team on the court so that 3 teams would play at once on four hoops. Naturally, most of the players in the NBA object to the new proposal. They say that 2 more hoops would change the nature of the game. The proponents of the new system say that allowing 3 teams to play at once will bring more players/teams to the NBA and give more people an opportunity to play professional sports. Proponents of the old system claim that the new system wants to redefine basketball into a new sport entirely. Enter, your question "Please tell me specific ways that basketball with 3 teams playing all at once and with four hoops threatens traditional basketball?" The answer, it ceases to become basketball anymore. Hillman, you are asking to redefine an established institution. If marriage is just a societal construct (as many in your camp maintain) then why don't you just call it something else. Create something new...but don't call it marriage.
You all are kings at branding. You did a great job with the "gay" thing....which sounds so much more approachable than sodomy or homosexuality. Try something with marriage maybe it will work.
I'm weighing in on Peter's side. I agree that a male-female relationship is the best environment for children. I am a product of a single mother home and although I had many of the same opportunities as kids with both parents NOTHING takes the place of a father in the home. I had an extensive network of aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins who loved me and treated me as if I were their own child, but there is always that hole that will never be filled where a father should have been. I would submit that the same would be true had I been raised by my father - I would've longed for my mother that wasnt there. And before it even starts, dont tell me that I've got abandonment issues that are the core of the problem - A mother and father provide unique guidance and love that every child longs for, abandonment issues aside.
Also, I dont understand the argument comparing gay right to marriage to interracial marriage. In interracial marriages, it is still a man and woman who are getting married. I know gay marriage advocates say that marriage is between two people who love each other, but that completely ignores the fact that gender is a key component to the composition of a marriage as we know it. Why cant marriage be defined as a man and a women and civil unions include all the rights and privileges (and heartaches) of marriage, but be defined as both parties being the same sex? I honestly dont understand what the issue is with that - and dont give me "Separate is not equal" arguments. Dont even BEGIN to compare this with what Blacks went through in this country.
All that being said, if we grant marriage to gay couples i'd be ok with it.
All that
Just when I thought this couldn't get any stupider.... along comes the NBA reference?
Are you serious?
I can't believe I'm dignifying this stupidity with an answer, but the obvious response is that unlike your idiotic 'basketball with multiple hoops' scenario no one is advocating any change to straight marriage.
Were you perhaps not aware that gay marriage would be optional, not mandatory?
"That doesn't mean I equate straightness with gay sex"
My apologies. Meant to say 'that doesn't mean I equate straight events with inappropriate public sex'.
Just Me:
I don't believe anyone here is saying gay marriage is equivalant to the treatment of blacks in the US historically.
But the obvious parallel, if limiting the idea strictly to marriage, is interracial marriage.
Lest we forget that interracial marriage bans weren't just black/white. It was all different races. And, oddly, in several states 'good people' weren't allowed to marry Hindus.
"Try something with marriage maybe it will work."
The lesbians already did that. They call it a 'first date'.
Oh, I kid the lesbians and them bringing a U-Haul on the first date.
"but that completely ignores the fact that gender is a key component to the composition of a marriage as we know it."
Not 'as we know it'. As you know it.
Me marrying a woman would be just as alien and wrong for me as you marrying someone of the same gender would be for you.
And, again, civil unions are not the same as marriage. If they are, how about you settle for one?
The first obvious difference is that the term marriage packs an emotional and psychological punch that 'civil union' just doesn't muster up. It's that power that is the real stabilizing influence of marriage, as much if not more than the legal ties.
The second is that it's very hard to make a civil union a legal marriage equivelant. The first hurdle is that marriage is recognized by international law but civil unions are not. Try getting stuck overseas and trying to explain why your 'civil union partner' is the 'same as my married partner', either culturally or legally.
And even currently here in the US civil unions aren't equal legally to marriages. Particularly at the federal level.
And their will always be some numbnut that will challenge a civil union, particularly when there is $$ involved. Believe me, it happens. And given the fact that we have elected judges in many states that means a judge looking to score cheap political points may very well at a minimum make the 'civil union partners' fight a prolonged legal battle for what a married couple would take for granted.
Don't think this would happen? Then I'd suggest you've never lived in the South or in much of rural America.
Wow Hillman you are a supreme prick. My great-great gandmother was the daughter of a slave in Alabama. I asked her how she dealt with such jerks. She responded a smile and kindness melts hearts. You have much to learn I guess
Hillman,
I understand that all interracial marriages were against the law, but I dont understand the parallel of interracial marriage and gay marriage. With interracial marriages, we were still talking about a man and a woman.
Hillman- you are ABSOLUTELY advocating for a change in marriage! You want to Change the entire definition...just like those folks in their analogy wanted to change the definition of basketball to include 4 hoops.
Hillman,
I hope you dont believe for a moment that by calling the union between you and your boyfriend a marriage, will immediately cause people to treat you as they would a male and female couple. You could call yourselves anything you want, but if you go overseas and call your boyfriend your "husband," I doubt they would be that much more open minded to your plight just because our government sanctioned it. Likewise for judges you encounter in court here.
From what I'm gathering, gay couples want to be accepted the same as straight couples and that is the reason they demand to have marriage rights. What I would say to that is you have a long way to go before people will look at you the same as straight couples. Period. You can get married, but I promise you that you will not be treated differently. If anything I think it would open you up to more ridicule / strife.
As for the emotional feeling brought on by the word "marriage," I would just say that all the feelings, good and bad, brought on by that word were built by thousands of years of history of the relationship between man and women. I understand that you think marriage to a woman is gross and even if now you've opened your mind to include other definitions of marriage, everyone grows up conditioned to the fact that a man and a woman constitute a marriage.
Just Me:
In all honesty I don't give a rats ass how straight people view my relationship. At this point if a straight person is going to look down on my gay marriage then I really don't feel an obligation to suck up to them for approval.
As for the power of the term marriage..... again, not for straight consumption. It's how I see it, and how my partner sees it. Beyond that, as far as the emotional impact, it's nobody's business, so what straight people think is irrelevant.
From a legal standpoint, the overseas issue is pretty simple. Other countries recognize marriage as the home country stipulates it (generally speaking) What they typically don't recognize are quasi-marriage ideas like civil unions.
It's just much stronger if you can say you have full legal marriage rights with your companion as you travel.
In that instance, it's the legal protection that I'm after.
"Hillman- you are ABSOLUTELY advocating for a change in marriage! You want to Change the entire definition.."
Not really. Your marriage remains exactly the same.
Just like it did when interracial marriage was allowed.
If me being allowed to marry somehow changes the value of your marriage then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.
"Wow Hillman you are a supreme prick. My great-great gandmother was the daughter of a slave in Alabama. "
I'd much rather be a supreme prick than play subservient to bigots who may on occasion deign to throw me crumbs from their table. A table my tax dollars help pay for.
I tend to protect my family structure aggressively. If you don't feel the same need to protect yours that way, that's up to you. But it's important to me, so when someone attacks my family I will do whatever I have to to keep my family and friends safe, stable and secure.
Isn't that what families are supposed to do? Just because you don't like my family doesn't mean I have any less obligation. In fact, it makes my obligation greater.
As stirring as your great-great grandmother's story may be, I'm not really sure what the relevance is here, other than to provide you some sort of gratuitous reference to suffering past.
Unless you are suggesting that perhaps she was a better person for being kind and sweet to the the bigoted people that sought to keep her down, a little like you are suggesting I should be to elitist pricks that would seek to keep me as a second class citizen and make my life more difficult. Perhaps her calling them on their bullshit and inhumanity was just too much for polite society of the day, and I should take a lesson from that?
Was that your point?
" I understand that you think marriage to a woman is gross and even if now you've opened your mind to include other definitions of marriage, everyone grows up conditioned to the fact that a man and a woman constitute a marriage."
No. Not gross. Just impossible, unless I'm willing to lie to my opposite-sex partner and ruin her life trying to fit into something that I am not.
As for everyone growing up conditioned to the 'fact' that a man and a woman constitute a marriage, that's not really accurate. Kids these days by and large don't see a problem with gay marriage. Unless they are being raised by bigots.
What's fascinating about this civil rights battle is that it's being waged online and in forums that can be preserved forever. Sortof a Hall of Hate, for future historians.
"From what I'm gathering, gay couples want to be accepted the same as straight couples and that is the reason they demand to have marriage rights. "
Nope. It's because I pay the same taxes as you, my partner fought to protect this country, and I've earned the right to be an equal citizen.
And because it helps strengthen our own gay relationships and family structures.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but it's nice if you and others welcome that. But if you don't at the end of the day that's not really relevant.
"From a legal standpoint, the overseas issue is pretty simple. Other countries recognize marriage as the home country stipulates it (generally speaking) What they typically don't recognize are quasi-marriage ideas like civil unions."
Where would you travel, other than parts of Europe where they're already accepting of gay relationships, would you being married to a man make a difference in people's behavior towards you legally or otherwise? I dont think other countries "give a rats ass" (to borrow your term) what we call you here. If you set foot on their land, you're still two men and therefore not married. Whether you care what straight people think of you or not, you will be treated as two men travelling together not a married couple.
------------------------------
"As for everyone growing up conditioned to the 'fact' that a man and a woman constitute a marriage, that's not really accurate. Kids these days by and large don't see a problem with gay marriage. Unless they are being raised by bigots."
I really dont think that the majority of kids look at gay couples as ok. Openly gay kids in schools are ostracized and made fun of. Perhaps people in your circle of friends raise children who are exposed to this and are open to it, but I doubt that is the norm.
--------------------------------
"It's because I pay the same taxes as you, my partner fought to protect this country, and I've earned the right to be an equal citizen."
To this I say: get in line. We all pay taxes but we aint all viewed as equal my friend. Welcome to the civil rights fight!
"Openly gay kids in schools are ostracized and made fun of. Perhaps people in your circle of friends raise children who are exposed to this and are open to it, but I doubt that is the norm"
Point well taken about the ostracism (and bullying).
But from an ideas point of view kids today have no problem with the idea of gays being married. They may joke about it, but most don't see what the big deal is.
Case in point (admittedly anectdotal)..... my own nephew just graduated from a very conservative private Christian school in VA. I attended his graduation. His circle of friends were very welcoming and friendly, even asking why my partner wasn't there, etc. It didn't feel to me like a put-on just because I was in the room.
I asked my nephew about it later. He said that while they are actually taught that gays are going to hell, etc., the vast majority of the students themselves think this is silly and think gays deserve equality. Yes, they make gay jokes. But, then, so do I.
I hear this same tale repeated over and over again.
Not to say things are perfect. There are still a lot of high school (and earlier) bullying incidents out there. But more and more the majority of kids got no problem with the 'mos marrying.
And studies back this up. Support for gay marriage is far higher among the young.
" If you set foot on their land, you're still two men and therefore not married. Whether you care what straight people think of you or not, you will be treated as two men travelling together not a married couple. "
From what I can tell Israel, Canada, and South Africa are among the nations that recognize gay marriages performed in other countries.
Plus there is the diplomatic corps. I'm no expert on this one, but several of my friends that are State Dept or other US agency personnel tell me that it's becoming an issue as far as gay married couples travelling on behalf of their home countries (including the US). Host countries typically honor the marital status (and accompanying rules and customs) of the travelling personnel. So even if they don't recognize gay marriage they will still honor the marital status of US personnel travelling for the US government.
And that's potentially a whole bunch of people in the DC area.
Of course if you vacation in Tehran or Baghdad you will get a hostile reaction. But still being legally married is a huge deal in terms of international law and how you are treated in a legal sense.
And the trend is clearly toward more and more countries accepting gay marriages from other countries.
Will it be universal? No. North Korea will probably never be on board. Ditto for many Muslim countries.
"To this I say: get in line. We all pay taxes but we aint all viewed as equal my friend. Welcome to the civil rights fight!"
Agreed. But I'm done with standing meekly in that line, hoping for crumbs from those that think they are my betters because they are straight.
The meek may inherit the earth, but I've always understood that to be an 'after you die' sortof inheritance, and frankly I just ain't willing to wait that long. Not when it's my family and friends' lives in the balance.
Hillman, you are asking to redefine an established institution. If marriage is just a societal construct (as many in your camp maintain) then why don't you just call it something else. Create something new...but don't call it marriage.
The second organized religions accepted special-status privileges for the "institution of marriage" they lost the right to define it.
That's why thinking "people of faith" believe in the absolute separation of church and state.
The idea that you can "call your relationship something else" is not parallel because we've tied a whole panoply of civil rights to the status of "marriage".
That's why people of faith (especially the "values voter" types *shudder*) should be fighting with every fiber against government sanction of "marriage". *Everyone* should be getting a civil union; let the preachers do the "marrying".
Until y'all get the gummint out of the marrying business, you get no sympathy *whatsoever* regarding *redefining* marriage.
"My great-great gandmother was the daughter of a slave in Alabama. I asked her how she dealt with such jerks. She responded a smile and kindness melts hearts. You have much to learn I guess"
That comment makes me want to vomit. It is the height of ridiculousness. Smiles don't change legislation. Get angry about civil rights being trampled on, else you'll be subjugated forever.
I'm not about to self-immolate for democracy, but this is utter crap. There are days when I think ACT-UP should make a come back.
That comment makes me want to vomit. It is the height of ridiculousness.
If you think being an ass and a complete dick wins over the hearts and minds of those people that are on the fence than I don't know what to say to you.
If you're right why revert to hate?
Post a Comment