Marriage “Equality?” Or Granny Angst?
February 14th, 2007 by Peter
It’s February in Connecticut, with all the usual signs to prove it: snow on the ground, kids home from school, and Courant columnist Susan Campbell raging against “bigots” who stand athwart her crusade to erode the meaning of marriage.
We’re accustomed to Campbell’s usual fallacies: pretending 1) that same-sex “marriage” has legal portability when it doesn’t; 2) that clergy support for same-sex “marriage” represents religious division on the issue rather than a tiny fringe within the community of faith; 3) that “prejudice and fear” motivate the pro-family side while making no mention of the death threat against Connecticut Catholic lobbyist Marie Hilliard and other hate crimes committed against pro-family churches by same-sex “marriage” supporters; 4) that the slippery slope to polygamy is “a cheap and very nasty rhetorical trick” while making no mention of the “Beyond Gay Marriage” statement in which prominent same-sex “marriage” supporters like Gloria Steinem and Cornell West endorse polygamy; and 5) that it is the Christian opponents of same-sex “marriage” that rely on “shoddy Biblical scholarship” rather than Campbell’s own clergy buddies.
Yes, it’s all there, as well as the usual tactic of propagandizing-by-pull-at-the-heartstrings-storytelling. This one will be familiar to those who followed the television coverage of our opponents’ press conference:
To start the discussion on Connecticut’s marriage-equality bill, let’s turn to Alexandrina Sergio of Glastonbury. In closing her impassioned speech in support of the bill’s launch last month, Sergio held up a family Christmas picture of her daughter Lauren; her daughter’s spouse, Margaret; and their children (Sergio’s grandchildren), Lindsay, 21/2, and Alistair, 4 months.
“We have met the enemy,” Sergio said over the cheers, “and this is not it.”
Earlier, Sergio read a portion of a letter she wrote to Gov. M. Jodi Rell – proud grandmother of Tyler – who has vowed to veto any marriage-equality bill passed by the legislature this session.
“I fear for Lindsay and Alistair if they must grow up in a society where their family cannot enjoy the respect, the rights, the benefits and the protections enjoyed by Tyler’s family,” Sergio wrote. (Last week, she received a reply from the governor’s office that said, in part, “The Governor opposes any form of discrimination against any person or group.”)
But check out the next paragraph:
What Sergio didn’t mention in her speech, husband David said later, is that their daughter and her family live in Canada, which recognizes same-sex marriages. As long as the family stays north, they will continue to enjoy an environment similar to that of Tyler’s family – but not here.
So the people for whom we ought to redefine marriage in this anecdote already live in a place where it’s happened–“but not here.” Sounds like Grandma wants the grandkids to move to Connecticut and blames Jodi Rell because they won’t. What Campbell–and supposedly objective media outlets–covered as an impassioned plea for same-sex “marriage” seems actually to have been your run-of-the-mill case of granny angst.
The state will hear much more of this “tell our stories” tactic by same-sex “marriage” proponents in the weeks ahead. Reporters could do a service to the truth by checking their accuracy instead of merely passing them along as fact.
TrueBlueCT said, “What, no FIC stories about how civil unions have ‘hurt’ their marriages? Senator DeLuca must have been right when he freely admitted that marriage hasn’t been harmed one iota by the civil rights legislation.”
In response, I want to refer you to an excellent treatise on this subject by John Horvat II, entitled “Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Hurts Us”. You can find this article at http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/why_homosexual_marriage_hurts_us.htm
Before you dismiss Mr. Horvat’s arguments, simply because he is associated with the Catholic faith, it is worth reading through to understand the viewpoint that same-sex marriage is contrary to natural order (i.e. the laws of nature). Even for those who profess a difference of beliefs – or a complete lack of belief – in God, there are nevertheless certain undeniable principles made manifest in nature that we can all witness and experience. It is a biological fact that we are made as distinctly male and female, and that both sexes must combine to generate new life. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist, on this we can all agree because it is plainly evident in the laws of nature. Marriage, being the societal institution by which we ensure the creation of each successive generation, cannot help but be inextricably tied with the definition that it is between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Phil, you should know that when I wrote “miracles can happen” I was merely using ornate language to describe (1) the fact that unexpected pregnancies have occurred to women thought to be past their childbearing years, and (2) the fact that medical advances continue to develop in ways that enable men and women to overcome ailments that would otherwise have prevented them from having a child.
In both such cases, the natural outcome – the conception of new life by the union of male and female gametes – is being achieved through unexplained or unorthodox means. Perhaps it would have made you happier if I had simply said, “Sometimes wonderful and marvelous things happen, despite our expectations to the contrary”.
But let’s keep it in perspective, shall we? Throughout the course of human history, billions and billions of children have been born through the everyday, run-of-the-mill, natural processes conception. And thousands upon thousands of children have been born in circumstances that were somehow out of the ordinary, in ways that might seem inexplicable or amazing. Nevertheless, in every case, the results have always been consistent with the natural intent that new life arises from the combination of male and female genetic material.
Far from being miraculous, your suggestion of a lesbian getting her partner pregnant sounds diabolical and un-natural. If nature had ever intended such an event to occur, we ought to have seen it by now. Obviously we haven’t. (Although perhaps as Bill O’Reilly suggests, we just need to find the right cupcake to do the trick). The odds of making it occur artificially seem pretty slim. Plus it sounds downright unethical to be performing such experimentation on human cells, to attempt such a “lesbian conception”. But why am I surprised by the suggestion … you folks to keep discovering new ways to offend against the natural order!
The far likelier event is when a lesbian partner becomes impregnated by a sperm donor, who is actually the true biological parent. As we have already discussed, this deprives the child of its natural inherent right to be raised a true father and mother, and is not much different from the outcome when an adopted child is being raised by two “mommies”.
On the question of whether something constitutes a “civil” right, some of the examples recently cited have confused the distinction between (1) those rights granted to all citizens by the government, and (2) those inalienable rights which we posses as human beings. Take a quick look at Wikipedia to learn more about the distinction. Type 1 above would normally be called “civil rights”, whereas type 2 above would be called “human rights”.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
If it’s alleged to be a “human right” then one would have to appeal to the laws of nature to find its justification. But the laws of nature obviously argue otherwise, because of the procreative aspect in marriage which is biologically impossible for same-sex couples.
Failing that, some may allege that it is a “civil right”, by which is meant a privilege extended by the sovereign state to all of its citizens by the power of law. In other words, not an inalienable right, but one that may come and go depending upon a number of factors (e.g. where you live, and when you lived in history). It is in this way that a civil right differs from a “human” or “natural” right.
To clarify with respect to the recently cited examples, voting is a civil right because it is a power granted to citizens by the government. The government decides who enjoys the right, based upon criteria that can be universally applied across its citizenry. That is why the law can set a specific age at which one becomes eligible to vote.
Marriage as a relationship is a human right, but it uniquely applies to male/female couples by the nature of the procreative act.
Marriage as a contract is a civil right, which makes it subject to the authority of the state in determining the qualifications of those who are eligible. The criteria which are universally applied to the citizenry are that male/female couples who are biologically compatible for procreation (e.g. not too closely related, like brothers and sisters or other inter-familial relations) can be married, in the furtherance of the societal goal which is the creation of successive generations.
What then are we to make of same-sex couples? Nobody is stopping you from living together. Pursue your inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just don’t ask us to consider your relationship as equivalent to marriage, because it’s not.
I think the church as well as other forms of discrimination and hatred due to a lack of understanding and relevant coherent information should stay away from the law. Your ignorance and the ignorance of this group saddens me. I hope one day you will learn to love everyone as a human being and not through the blinded eyes of your false convictions. Can’t wait to see all of the misinformed faces tm, how sick you all will make me!! And just for the record polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other sick thing you can think of has nothing to do with gay marriage!! Stop hiding behind lies!
Dave,
You raise some interesting points. I’m going to quote you and then respond in sequence, if that’s all right.
“Phil, you should know that when I wrote “miracles can happen” I was merely using ornate language to describe…”
It sounds like I made an inaccurate assumption about your use of the word miracle. I’ve heard people say “miracles can happen” when talking about the possibility of women who’ve had total hysterectomies to conceive, for example, but your usage was more colloquial. That’s fine; I stand corrected.
“…you folks to keep discovering new ways to offend against the natural order!”
I’m sorry–who are “you folks?”
“But the laws of nature obviously argue otherwise, because of the procreative aspect in marriage which is biologically impossible for same-sex couples.”
This is a surprisingly Darwinian argument. Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?
“The government decides who enjoys the right, based upon criteria that can be universally applied across its citizenry.”
Would you agree, then, that Anne was wrong when she said “Age doesn’t matter in civil rights?”
Anne,
I think the reason that it’s not a straw man is thus:
It seems like the argument being put forth by you and Dave is that same-sex marriages do not deserve state support because they are infertile–the language that Dave used was “a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself.“ Now if infertility itself were a bright line (in debate, a “bright line” is a clearly defined rule or standard), then the state has a legitimate interest in preventing other infertile marriages as well.
But Dave makes it very clear that when he talks about a non-perpetuating relationship, he is not talking about heterosexual relationships. In fact, he lists many examples of heterosexual relationships that do _not_ meet his criteria of non-perpetuation. Whether a couple is physically incapable of having a child, or chooses not to have a child, Dave is adamant that those are not to be included in the category of non-perpetuating relationships.
The only relationships that _do_ meet the criteria presented are same-sex relationships. And in fact, if you read Dave’s posts, you’ll see that _all_ same-sex relationships fall into this category of non-perpetuating, whether both partners adopt or one partner creates a child biologically.
If we presented this in logical terms, then, Dave’s term “a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of society in perpetuating itself” is exactly equal to “a same-sex relationship.” They terms, as Dave uses them, are synonymous. In math, we would say that A is a set, and B is a set, and they contain exactly the same data, so A=B.
The argument Dave makes is that same-sex marriage (or civil unions) should not be recognized by the state because they do “not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations.”
But, since A=B, what Dave is really saying is same-sex relationships should not be recognized by the state because they are same-sex relationships. Dave is making a circular argument. It’s a fallacy.
Gabe’s yuk-yuk question alludes to the absurdity of this argument.
Excellent analysis, Dave. Thanks.
Phil,
I believe I have made it exceedingly clear that the “bright line” is based upon the qualities of the INSTITUTION of marriage, as traditionally known between a man and woman, rather than the qualities of a particular individual relationship between a specific man and woman. As you quoted me on it, it is the TYPE of relationship that merits special privileges to be granted by the state.
Considered as an entire category, opposite sex marriages produce several beneficial results that promote the furtherance of successive generations. Same-sex couples, viewed as an entire category, cannot replicate these particular beneficial qualities. Therefore they ought not to be viewed as equivalent.
The reason the argument seems circular to you is that you refuse to accept the validity of viewing this issue on the basis of these 2 categories.
I know our fundamental disagreement on this point must seem frustrating and irreconcilable. We could probably keep posting back and forth ad infinitum. But let me at least offer you this much. While my line of reasoning is that same-sex couples cannot “take a free ride” on qualifying for special privileges based on an argument of marriage equivalence, this still leaves the door open for some kind of justification to recognize these relationships on their own merits independent from the concept of marriage. Of course, it would be up to those advocating on behalf of these relationships to demonstrate some other qualities that are sufficiently beneficial to society as a whole. And quite honestly, it is this aspect of the dialogue that has been so obviously missing from the advocates of recognition for same-sex couples.
As to your argument of set-equivalence (A=B), that is simply not true. The set of persons who are ineligible to marry (A) does not strictly equal the set of persons within same-sex relationships (B). In fact, the set A is larger than B, because there are also opposite sex couples who are barred from marriage. I have provided examples of opposite sex couples that ought not to qualify for marriage benefits, because they are biologically incompatible for the furtherance of successive generations … inter-familial relationships. Mothers and sons cannot marry. Fathers and daughters cannot marry. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. Why is that? Surely if there were a case where any two persons truly loved one another, what business does the state have in stopping that? After all, doesn’t love make a family? And yet we accept this as law, because it serves a compelling societal interest. We know that inbreeding produces genetic defects and is ill-suited to the furtherance of successive generations. We also exclude opposite-sex couples below a certain age from marrying, further expanding the set A without any effect on set B. We also exclude opposite-sex couples who are already married to other people (and not yet divorced) from marrying, because of the disruptive effect that such would inflict upon an orderly society. Once again, this further expands the set A without any effect on set B.
So I reject your claim, and stand behind my original position. The institution of marriage is recognized and granted special privileges by government precisely because it serves the interest of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations. There are many other types of relationships between persons that do not qualify as equivalent to marriage because they fail to support this societal goal. Same-sex couples are among those who do not qualify, but are not the only ones.
Doesn’t it seem silly to you that our current law prohibits civil unions between two sisters, two brothers, or other closely-related persons of the same sex? Obviously this is a remnant copied from the marriage concept, but in this new context – absent the procreative element – it seems absurd. I believe this further illustrates the fallacy of the marriage equivalence argument.
I am intrigued by your remark, “Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?” Perhaps you can elaborate on this to clarify. Are there some aspects of natural law you feel we ought to set aside? If so, why?
Someone finally gets me!
“In fact, the set A is larger than B, because there are also opposite sex couples who are barred from marriage.”
My contention was not that there were no opposite-sex couples barred from marriage, but that none of them met your criteria of non-perpetuating relationships.
The closest you come to an example is incestuous relationships, but you do acknowledge that they are capable of having children.
“Of course, it would be up to those advocating on behalf of these relationships to demonstrate some other qualities that are sufficiently beneficial to society as a whole.”
There’s no reason to believe that same-sex marriage would not have the positive effect on same-sex relationships that mixed-sex marriages do. In addition to strengthening the relationships, the institution, due to its public declarations and legal recognition, can have the effect of reducing infidelity in the gay community.
Moreover, since it is perfectly legal for partners in a same sex relationship to produce or to raise children, legal SSM would provide those children with the benefits of married parents.
Legal same-sex marriage would be optional, not mandatory, so it would not decrease the freedom of any citizen. Nor would it have any impact on churches which perform marriages, since they would still be able to set their own rules. It would actually increase religious freedom, since many religions today bless same-sex unions.
Finally, legalizing same-sex marriage will help to protect the institution of marriage for future generations. You seem to think that it is an extremist liberal position, but history will show that legalizing SSM is actually a moderate compromise. The opposite of “strictly heterosexual” marriage is not “optional gay marriage.” The continuum can stretch much farther than that, to “strictly gay marriage” (a ludicrous notion, I’m sure we both agree), to “complete elimination of state marriage.”
Right now, only the fringers of both liberal and conservative movements advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether. But if you have an issue where both libertarians and religious extremists agree with the far-far-far-left, you’re not looking at something outside the realm of possibility. If you really want to protect the institution of marriage, you would open it up to consenting adult couples who are being discriminated against without good reason.
“Are there some aspects of natural law you feel we ought to set aside? If so, why?”
Earlier you used the phrase “the laws of nature,” and now you use the term “natural law.” From a philosophical standpoint, the two are not synonymous.
“Natural law” refers to the religious belief that many religious tenets can be inferred philosophically without resorting to belief in God.
“The laws of nature” refers to the way that evolutionary processes play out in an environment.
Phil wrote: “In addition to strengthening the relationships, the institution [of marriage], due to its public declarations and legal recognition, can have the effect of reducing infidelity in the gay community.”
Most opposite-sex couples are sexually faithful to one another. By contrast, David P. McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., PhD, found that the notion of sexual fidelity is anathema to long-term male homosexual relationships. McWhirter and Mattison are themselves homosexual and a male couple. In their book The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall) they report the results of their study of 157 male couples. They concluded that “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships,” that “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” and that “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.”
Of particular interest are the following parts of their analysis. From pages 253 and 254:
“When we ask the men in this study why they want sex outside the relationship, their answers include the following responses:
“1. ‘All my sexual needs are not met by my partner. Sex together gets boring at times, and I need new material for my fantasies.’
“2. ‘My partner is not really my sexual type. I still like to have sex with a certain type of man.’
“3. ‘It’s fun and adventure. The more variety and number of partners, the more adventure and fun.’
“4. ‘I have some kinky sexual interests that my partner doesn’t share.’
“5. ‘We have found that having sex with others often enhances our sex together afterwards.’
“6. ‘Sometimes I do it with another guy because I’m so angry at my lover.’
“7. ‘At times I get scared with how emotionally tied to each other we are. Having outside sex at times gives me a temporary distance I feel I need to have from my lover.’ . . .
” ‘We’ve never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying the probability?’ ”
Page 255:
“Many couples in the earliest years together linked faithfulness with sexual exclusivity, while couples with a longer history think faithfulness has little or nothing to do with sex.”
Page 256:
“As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel . . . by the end of the fifth year or relationship more than 95 percent are in this group [of ‘sexual nonexclusivity’]. Bell and Weinberg warn: ‘Moreover, it should be recognized that what has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa . . . .’ ”
McWhirter and Mattison conclude their discussion on page 259 by stating, “We do not trust it [the ‘sexual monster’] in our partners, and least of all in ourselves.”
Intellectual honesty requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the institution of marriage; whether that which “has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa.” For just one example, should adultery be excluded from the reasons for divorces of male couples? The answer appears to be, yes. If the marriage laws apply equally to everyone, then adultery also must be excluded as a reason for divorce among heterosexuals. This also raises the very real question of why male couples should be excluded from marrying as many men as they would like.
Intellectual honesty also requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the children raised in that environment. Accounts from those raised in environments of sexual licentiousness indicate that such an environment is very harmful to development.
Phil wrote: “Right now, only the fringers of both liberal and conservative movements advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether. . . If you really want to protect the institution of marriage, you would open it up to consenting adult couples who are being discriminated against without good reason”
In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met in Chicago to prepare a “gay stance for the 1972 elections.” About 200 individuals from 18 states representing 85 organizations showed up for the two-day event and adopted a list of 17 federal and state “demands,” including the following:
· “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
· “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” (Note that it refers to “all” persons.)
On July 26, 2006 the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was issued. It calls for extending all of the benefits of marriage to, among other relationships, the following:
· “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”
· “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households”
The people putting out this manifesto are not fringe figures. The more than 300 signatories include feminist icon Gloria Steinem, NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Columbia University anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli, Georgetown law professors Robin West and Chai Feldblum, the Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod of Love Makes a Family, Inc., Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West, writer Barbara Ehrenreich, and Pat Clark, former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
The intended result of all of these proposals, as some homosexual rights activists have admitted, is the effectual elimination of marriage as an institution.
Phil wrote to Dave: “Earlier you used the phrase ‘the laws of nature,’ and now you use the term ‘natural law.’ From a philosophical standpoint, the two are not synonymous.”
It is clear to any casual reader that Dave was not referring to a philosophical construct. In post #45 above you said something that is applicable here: “Instead of answering the question, you criticized the questioner, which made the question, given its sarcastic tone, more potent.”
You have shown that you are deft at changing the subject to avoid answering. I’m curious as to whether you are capable of answering Dave’s question.
Sodium Cyanide–
Was the book you mention in Note 61 a study of homosexual couples who were legally married? It’s not clear.
In Note 62, you cite the “National Coalition of Gay Organizations,” which no longer exists, but has become a conservative talking point. Since you claim that elimination of marriage is not a fringer position, would you agree with my contention that legalizing same-sex marriage is a way to protect the institution.
Note 63: “It is clear to any casual reader that Dave was not referring to a philosophical construct.”
I really don’t think that’s the case (that it’s clear.) Before answering an ambiguous question, it is important to clarify what is being asked.
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” will always be frustrated by linkage between the concept of marriage and the necessity of the procreative act in enabling society to survive through successive generations. It’s an argument they just can’t win. You may as well argue against the sun coming up in the morning.
They say it’s a circular argument. But the only circle in there is the “circle of life”. (OK, let’s all sing along, in the style of “The Lion King”)
They say it is an inherently unfair axiom that we impose to artificially exclude a whole category of people. But the axiom does not arise as a man-made creation. It is a fundamental truth of nature itself that male/female partnering is necessary for the continuance of the human race. When societies choose to place special importance and value upon those male/female partnerships, it is as a direct consequence of the natural order of things.
And yet when faced with this undeniable truth, they react like spoiled children by stomping their feet, pouting, and crying out, “it’s not fair!” (Hence the “granny angst”)
Stubbornly they refuse to admit the non-equivalence of opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions. And they continue onward in making their charges of bigotry and discrimination to any and all who disagree with their point of view.
I refuse to participate anymore in a circular meta-argument about an alleged circular argument. The fact that opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are not equivalent is plain for all who have eyes to see. Those who persist in denial on this point are likely to remain hopelessly separated from a meaningful dialogue with us. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. There will always be some minority of people who chafe against the restrictions imposed by the rest of society, on any issue. Why should the question of same-sex unions be any different? Fortunately, the momentum is with the defenders of traditional marriage. Already 26 states have safeguarded marriage with constitutional amendments. And here in Connecticut we had an encouraging step in the right direction yesterday, with twice as many folks taking a stand for traditional marriage as the number who showed up to advocate for same-sex “marriage”.
In my view, the civil unions legislation passed last year already went too far in granting rights to same-sex couples, because it confers exactly the same rights as marriage except the name itself. The very language of our laws defines civil unions in terms of the pre-existing statutes for marriage. If there was to have been a category of recognition for same-sex couples, it should have been crafted as an independent body of statutes to address the specific issues pertinent when two people desire to enter into a contract of mutual commitment and support, without any implied notion of a sexual relationship. Why not allow two elderly sisters to create a legal union for mutual support? If the government truly has no business in one’s bedroom, then why is the existence of any sexual relationship relevant to the subject of such unions? The body of rights that arguably would have been appropriate for such unions ought to have been strictly confined to the nature of the contract between the two persons, and it should not have included additional rights with respect to children. Yes, share your money and property. Yes, designate inheritance rights. Yes, enable your partner to participate in health care decisions when you are incapacitated. But no, you ought not to receive the same preferential categorization with respect to taxes. And no, you ought not to be granted rights pertaining to children that approximate the qualities and characteristics of marriage.
Critics will say this is “separate and unequal” treatment. And I would admit this is true. But separate and unequal does not imply that it is unfair. The nature of same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are not equal to begin with, and therefore the privileges granted by the government for these two uniquely different types of relationships have no need to be equal.
I will admit that there is a plausible ring of truth in the idea that committed relationships between same-sex couples might reduce infidelity within the gay community, and that this might produce some societal benefits – reductions in STDs, and perhaps even reductions in illegitimate births (from those who might have a propensity for bi-sexual affairs).
But regarding the notion of legitimizing same-sex couples with respect to child rearing, this does not seem a wise approach. Every child raised in such an environment is being deprived of its inherent right to either a father or mother. It seems the potential harm to children is the factor to which ought to give the most weight, notwithstanding the same-sex couples’ desire to have the freedom to share custody and responsibility for children.
Some have said that legalizing same-sex unions would increase religious freedom, since some religions currently have rites to bless such relationships. This is a spurious claim. All such faiths are free to act in this way under existing law, and indeed were able to do so even before our civil union legislation was passed.
I’m sure that the people who desire to create a same-sex union believe that the arrangement will be mutually beneficial in many ways – to themselves. But that’s not enough of a reason for their union to be elevated above the status of an ordinary contract. What really matters, in justifying the special privileges to be granted by the government, is demonstrating the benefits to society at large. So far, the one credible societal benefit we’ve heard is the notion of same-sex fidelity within such unions. Statistics currently suggest otherwise in situations lacking the formal memorialization of such a union, but it is at least plausible that those figures might change in the light of a sincere and legal commitment. Nevertheless, that’s only one societal benefit, which in no way compares with the scope of societal benefits derived from traditional marriages. Consequently it seems perfectly reasonable to consider same-sex unions as being less deserving of special privileges than opposite-sex unions.
I still eagerly await Phil’s elucidation with respect to either the laws of nature, or the aspects of natural law, that he feels we ought to set aside. By the way, the phrase “natural law” is not inherently coupled with a religious viewpoint. It is merely a reference to ethics and principles of law that are operative universally. It was actually the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who posited the existence of these principles. So I see no reason to object to the question regardless of the nomenclature. But if you see a difference between the two, just take your pick, and elaborate or whatever it was in nature that you implied we ought to set aside.
Phil,
Before answering an ambiguous question, it is important to clarify what is being asked. Which specific conclusions and behaviors discussed by McWhirter and Mattison in post #61 do you believe would be dependent on whether or not the male couples were legally married? Are you claiming that the homosexual couples who lobbied so hard for marriage in Massachusetts changed their sexual behavior after the court imposed same-sex ‘marriage’? If so, how?
Also, you state that the National Coalition of Gay Organizations no longer exists and has become “a conservative talking point.” You say that apropos of nothing. Are you claiming that they and their platform developed by about 200 individuals from 18 states and 85 organizations represent “only the fringers”? Is it your position that tenets of a homosexual rights group cease to be acceptable if they become a conservative talking point? Do you claim that the group’s successors have rejected the prior platform? Is so, where is that documented?
You ask “would you agree with my contention that legalizing same-sex marriage is a way to protect the institution[?]” Would you agree that pulling the plug on a sick patient is a way to protect the patient’s health?
Finally, given that Dave was responding to your remark, “Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?” which in turn was in response to Dave’s discussion of the biological nature of marriage, please explain how you conclude that he was potentially discussing something else entirely? Are we to infer that you are not intelligent enough to put a discussion into its logical context? Whether or not you can do that, I’m still curious as to whether you are capable of answering Dave’s question. Well?
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” will always be frustrated by linkage between the concept of marriage and the necessity of the procreative act in enabling society to survive through successive generations. It’s an argument they just can’t win. You may as well argue against the sun coming up in the morning.
There are loads of species that propagate through the ages quite successfully without the institution of marriage. Most without even acknowledging monogamy. Marriage establishes a socially-constructed institution that by no means requires child-producing, and child-producing by no means requires marriage. You just spent 1100 words making a fool of yourself, prattling on about “natural law” and marriage.
But all that aside, isn’t it more than just a little perverse to be arguing that we face a serious threat of underpopulation? One might say that increased homosexuality is a natural response to dwindling natural resources and overpopulation.
“Do you, Fido, take thee, Rover, to be your lawfully wedded pooch?”
Matt thinks the absence of marriage in the animal kingdom is an argument against natural law…and then calls other people fools. You gotta love it. 🙂
For more about the secular arguments against same-sex marriage, I would like to suggest the following articles:
Adam Kolasinski, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (M.I.T.’s newspaper, “The Tech”) — http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Prof. Margaret Somerville (McGill University), “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage” — http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
Compare these well-reasoned positions to the ravings of the Left in desiring to undermine public morality. It is amusing to observe how differently the folks on the Left seem to work through their thinking processes.
Hey NaCn,
While I don’t have time right now to answer all of your eleven questions, I’ll try to quickly answer the one that pops up multiple times. When you say “Are you claiming…[insert supposition here]?” –the answer is generally no. A question is not a claim, especially if it’s a genuine effort to seek more information.
Re: The National Coalition of Gay Organizations. My point that it’s a Republican talking point is that the only people who seem to be taking them very seriously are conservatives. The general gay populace isn’t quite so extreme. For comparison, both the KKK and Fred Phelps oppose gay marriage, and yet it would be unfair to act as if they represent all conservatives.
Phil,
In post #60 you wrote that “only the fringers . . . advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether.” Now you state in #70 that the “general gay populace” isn’t quite so extreme as the National Coalition of Gay Organizations. Then in the same paragraph you move the target yet again by complaining that it is not fair to state that groups “represent all.”
Your moving the target appears to be a tacit concession that your “only the fringers” argument is unsustainable. This, together with the facts in post #62, leads to the inescapable conclusion that a significant part of the gay-marriage movement wants to eliminate marriage, and completely unmans your argument that granting same-sex ‘marriage’ would in any way protect marriage. It appears you owe Dave an apology.
As to my questions, I took my lead from you: “It seems like a pretty reasonable [application] of reductio ad absurdum.” Great tool. Thanks.
One more thing. I’m still waiting for you to answer Dave’s question.
Dave,
Just a quick note–
Having read Kolasinki’s essay, I thought I’d point out a logic error he makes because it’s common to SSM foes. He cites David Popenoe’s Life Without Father as a publication which provides evidence that children need a male influence while growing up.
In actuality, the studies Popenoe writes about compared the lives of children who had a mother and a father to children who were raised by a single mother. He does not have the data to make a comparison between children raised by single mothers versus children raised in a two-parent home consisting of two mothers.
It’s easy to engage in fallacious reasoning when working from statistical data. For example, I might note that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, while only 25% of gay couples raise children.
So, if our concern is that we don’t want a child to be raised without a father, we can see that heterosexual marriages are twice as likely to lead to fatherless children as are gay marriages.
I know it might sound like strong evidence against heterosexual marriage, but I caution you that it would be just as wrong to discriminate against heterosexuals as it would to discriminate against homosexuals.
Phil,
I share your concern about children being raised without a father.
However, I do not agree with your inference that a 50% divorce rate equates to 50% of those children being raised without a father … because many fathers remain involved in their children’s lives after a divorce. In some cases, arrangements are made for shared custody; and in other cases, there is at least some mutually agreed schedule of visitations. It is not as though the father (or the mother, if the primary custody is determined in the reverse direction by the terms of the divorce) simply vanishes from any relationship with his (or her) children. And even if the father were to be removed from the child’s life altogether in the wake of the divorce, the child still had the benefit of a father in the years preceding the divorce. Hence the impact would depend upon the age of children at the time of divorce, which could bring them into their teenage years. We would probably need to consider input from child psychologists on this point, but I’d argue that it is in fact during the earliest years of life – as an infant, toddler, and preschool youth – that a child is most influenced by their parents. Finally, we haven’t even considered the statistics of remarriage in this analysis. The majority of divorced women actually remarry afterwards. Step-fathers can also provide a beneficial influence to children, in the absence of their natural father.
You are right in saying there is not much data available about how children will actually fare in same-sex marriages. Consequently data from single-parent families is being extrapolated to determine likely outcomes for the children who would be raised by same-sex parents. But what are we to do in the absence of concrete data on child rearing within same-sex marriages? Our natural intuition tells us that children are intended to be raised by both a mother and father, because this is the biological design of the human race. And the data we do have at hand, from situations in which a parent is absent, tells a very compelling tale of potential harm to society:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: US DHHS Bureau of the census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Centre for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principles Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: US Dept of Justice Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
Are we to ignore all of this based on pure faith that same-sex marriages will somehow be different? Advocates of this “innovation” in the design of the family would have us believe that the adults’ rights to sexual freedom trump the children’s inherent rights to be raised by both a mother and father as natured intended. This is among the primary reasons why defenders of the traditional family structure bristle at the notion of same-sex marriage – because it is an unwarranted “social experiment” in which future generations of children will bear the cost.
Susan posted on 20 Feb. “And just for the record polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other sick thing you can think of has nothing to do with gay marriage!! Stop hiding behind lies!”
Apparently she has not read the “Beyond Same-sex Marriage” manifesto issued in July last year (and referred to and cited from by NaCN in post 62 in this thread), which specifically demands recognition of “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”
Susan probably is also not aware that legislators in Canada are seriously considering legalizing polygamy.
Most are not aware that Denmark, one of the Scandinavian countries earliest to enact same-sex ‘marriage,’ now has animal brothels, patronized by Norwegians as well (going to Denmark to have “sex” with animals). I know it sounds preposterous, but here is the source: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1458080.ece.
Unless you want to deny these FACTS, it is obvious that we are already “on a slippery slope.”
Oh, and Susan, did you see your friends with their “misinformed faces” last Weds. (in Hartford at the Capitol)?
I’m still waiting desperately for a plausible reason why Gay Marriage should be stopped that doesn’t involve some verse of some some bible (which is never followed exactly by those who thump it). What is it that you fear? More importantly, what is it about straight marriage that requires protection?
P.S. I’ll give one dollar to the first person that comes up with a empirically based, scientific study that proves a correlation and causal relationship between gay marriage and beastiality.