Understanding the Argument:
Reading over the various posts and comments, I think I'm beginning to understand the argument Maggie is making. The argument is that extending marriage to include same-sex couples would not just give rights to a small subset of the population, but would radically transform what marriage is. So long as only opposite-sex couples can marry, the thinking goes, marriage is linked to procreation; if same-sex couples can marry, too, then marriage is transformed into something else entirely. Adding same-sex marriage would ruin the old institution and create a new one, and the new institution would not longer retain a focus on having and raising children. Viewed in that light, same sex marriage is a threat to society: by redefining the institution, it will kill off its most important feature.
Leaving aside the question of whether this argument is persuasive, am I at least understanding it accurately?
Leaving aside the question of whether this argument is persuasive, am I at least understanding it accurately?
Otherwise, I don't suppose she thinks it would kill the institution's function in the 'having and raising' department - just impair it marginally but significantly, and so create enormous social costs.
It would "kill" it in the sense that all these previous changes, while weakening the strength of the institution, did not destroy its basic function. With this one, you can't even fake it any more.
I'd really like to see someone try to make some argument about why it's "procreation" that's the fundamental not "child rearing."
(Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit. I figured her basic argument would be something like that by the end of her 10th post, where she talked about the sacredness of the reproductive sex act. It's not a big leap from there to the idea that only couples who can engage in reproductive sex should be allowed to marry.)
If it's the first gay marriage does it no more than the marriage of any man and women who either cannot or have no intention of bearing children. If it's the second, I don't see how gay marriage threatens it--committed gay couples can adopt as well as infertile straight ones can and their children do quite well. If it's the third then your problem is not with gay marriage but with all forms of adoption--procreation and adoption are no more separate for gay couples than unmarried straight ones.
What if I agreed with Ms. Gallagher that the ideal family was a man and woman, utterly committed to each other and to the children that they bore and raised together? Would it follow that anything that did not meet that ideal dishonored it and should not be allowed by law?
If you apply that logic consistently, we ought to:
--ban infertile couples from marriage
--force people to make a legally enforceable promise to bear children before they get a marriage license
--end no fault divorce
--require a detailed screening, background &compatibility check before granting a marriage license
--raise the age of consent to marriage to 23 or 24
Even if you agree with Ms. Gallagher about the ideal, there are all sorts of families that fail to live up to it. Why is that she does not support extinguishing their rights, but she does support denying comparable rights to gays?
Anything human is imperfect. Things that are imperfect can still be good. The idea of banning marriages that fail to live up to an ideal--even if you send no one to jail--is like something out of The Handmaid's Tale.
It's just homophobia. Genteel homophobia, but homophobia nonetheless.
Religious communities are already accepting gay couples and sanctifying gay marriages. Thus, without any influence from law, culture is clearly changing.
It would seem to me that if these cultural changes represent a danger to the anti-SSM crowd, then they would either need to (1) change the status quo and enact legislation that punishes these cultural trailblazers or (2) create a cultural tyranny of the majority that would ostracize the subversive element (although this would most likely violate laws at some point).
I guess my question has two-parts: how does preserving the legal status quo stop cultural change, and does the anti-SSM movement really want status quo?
For that to be effective, would it then be necessary (or desirable) to restrict adoption/surrogacy/IVF only to OS and SS marriages and forbid single people from adoption/surrogacy/IVF?
I can think of several "experts" on psychology and family law who would no doubt gladly participate... for a fee.
Randy - her argument there was, I think, not that gay people want to destroy marriage, but that advocates and opponents of SSM alike acknowledge that SSM would change the nature of the institution in certain significant ways. One can still think - as the quoted advocates do - that these changes would be desirable; her point there is to answer the claim that accepting SSM wouldn't change much, so why resist it.
Jackson - Marriage has, I think, more than one special factual underpinning. Even if marriage ceased entirely to function as an institution encouraging procreation, I expect that many would survive. Do we as a society permit spousal privilege because we want well-raised babies or because, like doctor-client privilege it makes for healthier, saner citizens? Do we permit elective shares in inheritance to encourage baby-having and raising or because it's a default that most people would choose if they thought about it?
Other things would certainly change. Some already have. Alienation of Affection is, I think, almost gone as a tort.
I was back and forth on SSM myself for a while. Then I noticed that aside from the intrinsic argument, all the available evidence is consistent with it. I know of no major society which has had same-sex marriage and remained healthy for a long period of time. Not in X thousand years of history, Western, Eastern, Christian, Confucian, just nothing. Historically, you would think that *some* society *somewhere* had same-sex marriage and thrived if it wasn't harmful. So really, to me, the burden of proof is strongly on the backs of proponents of same-sex marriage.
1) Marriage is predicated on procreation...
2) Same sex couples cannot procreate...
3) Allowing SSM would harm the institution of marriage...
4) Marriage should remain a union of man and woman.
My problem is where the leap is made between 2 and 3. If legalized, the number of SSM would represent 5% of the country (at best). Moreover, these couples could use in vitro fertilization or adoption as an alternative method of procreation (already practiced in a minority of traditional marriages). Thus, how could SSM possibly harm the institution of marriage and the government's--supposed--interest in promoting procreation when it would be an extremely small minority of all marriages (and many SSM couples would actually procreate similar to infertile traditional couples)?
Somehow I have a feeling that the legal uniqueness of the institution of marriage is the last thing on the minds of a couple making babies.
Or is it that if Tom sees Dick and Harry happily wed, he'll leave his female fiancée at the altar and catch the gay?
Her own evidence shows that fertility rates are not linked to marriage rates, so how increasing the overall marriage rate and increasing the number of stable 2 parent homes leads to declining birth-rate/quality-of-life I do not know.
While you'd be right to argue that ssm is an untested experiment and therefore should be approached cautiously, you'd be wrong to say that "since it hasn't been done, we shouldn't do it."
(I'm rejecting the data from Sweden mentioned a couple posts ago because that seems to be mistaking correlation for causation).
I'll ignore your ignorant name calling for now...
Your list and logic is silly. Marriage is the type of relationship that always has the potential to result in children, and almost always does through birth or adoption regardless of intent when getting married. And when a child is unfortunately born to a single mother, the government incetivizes the women to get married for the sake of the child. The government isn't going to force behavior, but it can and should endorse, encourage and reward the type of relationship that is clearly beneficial to society, one that creates and raises children with the critical perspectives of both a mother and father. If people choose a non-marital life alternative, that's just fine, but don't ask the government for money and to endorse it.
Not all relationships in society deserve government encouragement and funding. Marriage clearly does because of children aspect, but why should the government encourage two guys to hang out and have gay sex? Or why should society pay for a sister and aunt to live together?
Incorrect. The aged and the infertile can marry as they please. Another embarrassing fact for those who seek to redefine marriage at the eleventh hour to fabricate a justification for a position that results from one thing: hostility toward homosexuality.
I was reading H.H. Scullard's History of the Roman World. He seems to think the decay of the Republic in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC had at least something to do with increasing Roman involvement in the Hellenistic world and increasing Roman adoption of Greek culture and morality at the expense of the old Roman virtues. He's dead, so we can't ask him about it.
I don't know about the timing, but the ancient Romans didn't really have a concept of homosexuality the way we do. By their standards, what mattered was who did the penetrating. So, nobody cared if the emperor liked to sodomize slave boys. If the emperor liked being sodomized, on the other hand, that was bad. One of the things Nero did that scandalized people was keep male concubines, but treat them in a way that suggested to observers that Nero was on the receiving end of the relationship. (He even married one, once. He dressed as the bride, too, which I think had more shock value than the marriage itself.)
It's really a part of the whole Roman idea that the higher your rank in society, the more control you had over your own body. For example, actors and gladiators weren't considered much better than prostitutes, because they used their bodies to entertain others, and it was considered shameful for a noble to enter one of those professions.
Orin, thank you for your care in understanding the position. I believe you have it pretty accurate but allow me to add one dimension that might give it some more perspective.
Re-defining marriage is not exclusive to homosexual couples. I think many people enter into marriage with a mistaken notion of what it is. Unless they learn quickly their marriage will most likely fail.
Underlying even deeper than procreation is marriages power that comes from integrating sexes. Procreation is the most physical manifestation of that power. The rest comes at a much higher price of devotion and selflessness to a member of a gender much much different than you are. And at the heart, it is "selfish" satisfaction in romantic enterprise vs the selfless love and devotion to someone you need to comprimise with to obtain so many wonderful things.
At the core of same-sex marriage we have a philosophy that says a segment of society is cannot love a member of the opposite sex enough to have a meaningful marriage. That their innabilities (which are not a handicap, btw) and sexual preferences should be pandered to. This directs people down the "romantic selfishness" path that we already know through cultural experience ruins marriages.
I don't buy that philosophy. I don't like it when blacks are told they can't drink from the same water supplies, whites can't jump, or any number of limiting stigmas that we wish to place on segments of society.
I'm not anti-gay however in that I do not care what preference people have. I care that in making such an egregious exemption that the message of devotion and sacrifice to someone so different does to people trying to find happiness in marriage. I'm worried about what it means for government when sexual habits are all that are required to gain the same access to resources as the truely handicapped. I worry about a philosophy that requires equalization of results (choosing heterosexual or homosexual companionship), at the great expense and enforcement of government which honestly is incapable of equalizing them.
The line between living your life the way you want to and demanding government pander to your lifestyle is crossed when centuries old mores of society are in the sights of the target. Marriage has provided for governance where poverty, wars, distructions where government failed. It is a grand tradition of gender integration, finding such impetus as to be practically universal throughout culture. It speaks to gender diversity, to truely sacrificing for others. The more people hear that message from government and other sources the more they find that happiness for themselves. But the line is crossed when people want to make it into a veritable Hallmark basket of goodies to celebrate and pander to every romance that flickers in the fickle hearts of humanity.
Yeah, I know all this stuff happened during the Empire and even in the late Republic, which is why I set the date when I did. Anyway, I also get the sense that that kind of ostentatious pederasty in Rome was never celebrated the way it was in Greece, but mostly just tolerated in an eye-rolling kind of way. Those crazy Julio-Claudians, you know.
Let me rephrase: I'm putting aside the Sweden example because the people who were arguing that Sweden was (a) in serious decline and (b) in serious decline due to same-sex marriage seem to be confusing correlation with causation.
Was my original comment really that confusing?
I don't know the answer to your question (what did Roman practice look like pre-Hellenic conquest). I don't think the answer's relevant for the reason Crane (and Perseus, and I) have all said: they didn't have a concept of homosexuality that corresponded to ours. It wasn't a meaningful category of self-identification. The idea that the Greeks were corrupting the Romans was around at the time, though. Cato in particular liked to make speeches about how the Greek influence was destroying Rome because Roman youth cared more about poetry than fighting. (I think he also criticized a senator for kissing his wife too passionately.) Don't know what he thought about same-sex conduct. Of course, whining about how civilization is own the downslope is pretty famously a pastime of every age.
In fact, Emperor Augustus became so concerned about the lack of interest in marriage among the upper classes, that he obtained legislation, the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea, which restricted inheritance rights of the nobility unless the testators and heirs were in appropriate marriages that produced a certain number of children.
"Adding same-sex marriage would ruin the old institution..."
What backward, sexist, and anti-children things to say! It is sexist because women usually lose there ability to have children sometime in their forties. For the safety of mother and child, it is better if they don't wait even that long. On the other hand, men can father children until an advanced age. Remember good old boy Sen. Strom Thurmond getting married in his eighties or nineties and fathering a child? Remember the good old days when a woman who wanted to marry late in life was sh*t out of luck and destined to remain a spinster for the rest of her life. And a child born to an unwed mother was referred to as a bastard, and mother and child were shunned by decent society. Women weren't allowed to enter the work force, except for working the spinning wheel or running a day-care center out of her home. Women weren't allowed to vote or own property. She was property - that of her husband. Divorce and abortion were both illegal. A women who cheated on her husband could be stoned to death - a righteous biblical punishment. Pregnant unmarried girls had to hide under a rock out of shame. Homosexuals were beat up, jailed or worse. Yes, things were so much better in the olden days! I'm making myself nostalgic,...and sick to my stomach.
Gay people HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. We have always been here and have always found some way to survive. We predate law. We predate religion. We predate culture. Human love -- for companionship, for lust, for survival -- includes those few of us who find ourselves inexorably drawn to members of our own sex. Stop pretending we aren't just like you.
Gen Y: As long as you're making unsubstantiated and offensive theories linking homosexuality and the fall of the Roman Empire, let me offer a more accurate one: Rome could no longer defend the empire because the population became less interested in the realities of daily life and more focused on the whims of God and getting to heaven because of the widespread belief in reinvented, repackaged Mithras myth called Jesus. In other words: stupid Christian fundamentalists killed the Roman empire.
History is repeating itself.
I wonder how many had the guts to tell her so.
First, I didn't, and second, nobody was talking about the Empire until you showed up.
Gay people HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. We have always been here and have always found some way to survive. We predate law. We predate religion. We predate culture. Human love -- for companionship, for lust, for survival -- includes those few of us who find ourselves inexorably drawn to members of our own sex. Stop pretending we aren't just like you.
If by gay you mean: "Romantic and sexual desires exlusively directed towards members of own gender," then yes, you're correct. If by gay you mean the previous definition plus: "which plays a major role in self-identification and categorization," it's not at all clear that you are. People didn't ascribe the psychological importance to sex that we do now if you go back a few hundred years. A "sodomite" in the Middle Ages was considered a legal criminal analogous to a thief or a murderer, not a type of person. That world - and the Greek world - wasn't divided into "straight" and "gay". If an Athenian only satisfied his pleasure with his male slaves, that wasn't considered a meaningful categorical truth about him; it was considered a preference, like being a vegetarian. That's how that society processed sexual desire; it's not how ours does. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, and it doesn't affect the argument for gay marriage, and it doesn't affect the truth of a gay person's feelings, and it doesn't make a gay person's romantic or sexual relationships any less worthy or true or beautiful.
No, that's how that society processed wealth and power. It describes how a small minority was free to act. It doesn't address interpersonal relationships within the upper classses nor among the common people and it certainly doesn't take into consideration the private romantic/sexual lives of slaves between attacks from their owners.
Use common sense. People with same-sex attractions were largely free to find and live with the persons they wanted to. Government largely ignored them. The private lives of common folk were irrelevant to the state. If the only manifestation of homosexuality was rape, why was there romantic poetry? Why were there open relationships between equals (even if looked down upon by some)?
Then chide the folks who brought it up. Start with Ms. Gallagher.
Seeking to associate my 25-year romantic and sexual relationship with slave-raping aristocrats most certainly does seek to diminish it.
With small nods and glances, the members of the group quietly acknowledge that there is disagreement about which fork in the road to take.
There's a studied silence and an impatient shuffle of the feet. Each of you has that traveller's instinct urging that to get someplace, it is best to keep moving.
And at that moment, right on cue, the ground begins to shake and a large figure appears in the distance. Shrouded by a rising cloud of dust, the looming interloper lumbers toward your little group. It's a huge beast.
You cannot look away and so you brace yourself and prepare to stand your ground. This has happened before and each of you recognize what is headed your way.
continued here
So do one night stands. To go for the extreme, so does rape.
If your logic is that children are valuable, and government should promote activities which result in children, then by that logic shouldn't the government ban/heavily tax condoms so that more children are produced? Shouldn't it encourage teen sex, so they can maximize their child producing potential?
I've been chiding every comparison between modern homosexuality and Greek society, irrespective of which side in this argument raised it. I've been chiding Ms. Gallagher for a variety of reasons. I don't associate any relationship of yours with a slave-raping aristocrat. Proud Gen Y Slacker asked a factual question with a clear agenda -
(Fact: Some contemporary Romans and, apparently, some historians thought the decline in Roman culture was due to Greek influence. Factual question no one has answered, asked by PGYS: what did Roman gay culture look like before they came under Greek influence? Why did he ask? Because it'd be convenient for him to be able to say that the influence of homosexuality influenced the decline of Rome. He'd be wrong.)
- to which I responded as factually as I could, w/out agenda. Well, my agenda is that I don't like analogies between the present day and Classical Greece. Am I saying there weren't men who loved other men? Not at all. And to that extent, as long as appropriate power structures were observed, yeah, I don't think anybody gave a damn. But there wasn't a conceptual divide between sexual orientations the way there is now. We're talking past each other on this.
Point out where you told anyone else to "cease immediately". And I don't think YOU associate my relationship with slave-raping aristocrats. Not directly, at least. What I'm objecting to is that some people hold homosexuality somehow responsible for the fall of civilizations -- a position that requires blinders and crayons. Then you chimed in with your description of "how that society processed sexual desire". That's nonsense. Roman patricians were free to rape female slaves. Was that how Rome "processed heterosexual sexual desire"? The abuse of power in legitimized rape is more about slavery than it is about sexuality.
I agree with you that what happened in Rome and Greece has little bearing on discussions of modern policy EXCEPT for two points: I won't sit by while the Maggie Gallaghers of the world say they are defending Western civilization when they attack gay people. The roots of Western civilization spring from cultures that accepted homosexuality. And, two, I won't sit quietly when people draw simplistic caricatures of the complex issue of sexuality in ANY culture.
No. I agree completely with you that Greeks and Romans did not view homosexuality as an identity (as gay people do today, with varying degress of agreement from others). Nevertheless, even Romans and Greeks must have noticed that the preferences of some individuals seemed awfully skewed in one direction or the other (especially in adulthood).
Because I have a lot of respect for EV and the other conspirators, I start out willing to cut some slack for a guest. But I'm frustrated. I'm also uncomfortable with the levels of hostilty in the comments. The typical post on this blog runs one to three paragraphs, has an introductory sentence, a conclusion, and in between some argument or evidence. A dozen lengthy posts into Maggie's topic, and I'm still not sure what her point is. (Orin may have it about right.) Once she gets to a point, I can decide if she's wrong, if she's being offensive, if we just happen to disagree based on different life experiences, or if she has some interesting insight into the situation. But the shaggy dog tale is just annoying. I've been trying to sort out whether I'm missing her point because it's late and I'm tired, or whether my strong emotional reactions are getting in the way of understanding. But if Orin's not sure either it's probably not just me.
I had a similar experience over at lefttoright blog, where a Ms. Anderson started what seemed like an interesting discussion, but four months into it hadn't made her point yet, and I've pretty much stopped reading that blog.
The govt in nat denying anyone the abilty to marry. It is not a legal deffinition. The debate centers on the privleges granted by the govt. this is not a judicial issue. It is a legislative issue.
Gay Marriage Controversy Extends To Massachusetts Schools.
ABC World News Tonight (10/19, story 8, 2:20, Tapper) reported that in suburban Boston, "David Parker was stunned when his 5-year-old son brought back a 'diversity book bag' from kindergarten. Inside -- this book, 'Who's in a family,' about all kinds of families -- multi-racial, single-parent and, controversially, same-sex parents." Parker "asked the school to notify him any time the subject of homosexuality came up." But after "one meeting, Parker refused to leave the school without that assurance. He was arrested. And after refusing to post the $40 bail, spent the night in jail. The school board then obtained a restraining order to keep him off school property. Last month, rallies for...and against Parker. Some parents agree with the school's effort to instill sensitivity in a state where same-sex marriage is legal," but "same-sex marriage opponents" do not.
(Fact: Some contemporary Romans and, apparently, some historians thought the decline in Roman culture was due to Greek influence. Factual question no one has answered, asked by PGYS: what did Roman gay culture look like before they came under Greek influence? Why did he ask? Because it'd be convenient for him to be able to say that the influence of homosexuality influenced the decline of Rome. He'd be wrong.)
Thanks for the mind reading. I suppose it's impossible that I'm actually curious about this question, and I thought that since people keep on bringing up ancient sexuality here, someone might know something about it? No, of course not, everyone you don't like has an "agenda." What the historian was talking about specifically was slavery, despotism, factional violence, and cynical diplomacy. I'm rather insulted that you think I would say something like "homosexuality destroyed Rome." I am interested to know that Cato complained about Greek influences while walking around without underwear, so thank you for that.
I'm not sure we have the evidence to answer your question. Our knowledge of Roman society before 300 BC, especially in those terms, is woefully inadequate.
I didn't say that SSM was an untested experiment. People on this thread have given the example of Rome during it's fall. Thus, SSM is an experiment that apparently has been tried, but has never been shown to be successful.
Did they have any children?
Answer -- No
Reaction--Thats good.
Answer -- Yes
Reaction--Oh how sad.
The only thing that makes a marriage meaningful to the rest of society is children.
if two "Homosexuals" get "Married" what does it mean to the rest of society --- Nothing -- see above.
That being the reality, society has no reason to codify SSM in law.
"Homosexuals" can live together to their hearts content and split up at will with absolutely no positive or negative effect on society so why bother to legitimize or criminalize their actions.
The vast gay wing conspiracy are only doing this because it gains them the attention they crave a allows them to bludgeon acceptance from the rest of us that is unavailable to them under uncoerced conditions.
I fail to see why I should have to approve of someones sexual dysfunction as a matter of law.
The arguments for SSM are based upon emmanations from the penumbras of the cravings of deeply flawed human beings. I reject them in there totallity.
I say Go Maggie.
To the sexually dysfunctional on this comment thread I say get a life, look at yourself in the mirror and ask what does my chosen lifestyle contribute to society in a beneficial way that would be missing if I were normal.
thedaddy
P.S. I reject the concept of "homosexuality" being normal, so don't jump on my statement as being "bigoted" or "homophobic". I don't care what you do among yourselves, I just don't want to have to hear about it or have it be made into laws which affect the vast majority who are not suffering from your delusions.
One good thing I will say about Ms. Gallagher's posts is that she has piqued my interest in this subject. So . . . Can anyone recommend any particularly persuasive academic pieces either in favor of or in opposition to SSM?
Homosexuality is as homosexuality does.
> BobNelson: I wonder how many of the men deriding romantic marriage here chose brides based on their birthing potential, absent any romantic attraction.
Thats rather a false dillema is it not? Romantic inclination does not preclude anything. This nuance is rather easy to explain -- I'm not attempting to explain how marriage is different as much as I am pointing out what is marriage more.
> Bago: If your logic is that children are valuable, and government should promote activities which result in children, then by that logic shouldn't the government ban/heavily tax condoms so that more children are produced?
The key to understanding this is responsibility. A one night stand specifically lacks the responsibility in procreation that marriage fosters. They are in fact diametrically opposed options in that regard.
> thedaddy,
Excellent points!
> Eisenstern: I refer to the argument that procreativity, as opposed to love, disposition of property, familial alliance, or something else, exclusively defines marriage. The question is more or less rhetorical...
It comes up a lot. Its even been dubbed the Sterility Strawman. No one is saying that procreation is opposed to "love, disposition of property, family alliance, or something else" but that it is the core of those dimensions. Procreation without those dimensions is a digressive enterprise.
Here you have invoked an amphibology that makes it difficult to judge whether this statement is accurate. Interestingly enough, this one statement has perpetuated the problem of the two sides of the debate talking past each other.
On the ss"m" side, readers have almost universally read this statement to mean something along the lines of forced pregnancies or mindlessly pumping out children. To that end they have dismissed marriage as "sexist," and one reader even brazenly proposed promoting rape as an acceptable alternative to marriage. If encouraging child-bearing is what you meant as a purpose for marriage, as the ss"m" side here seems to have glommed onto, then you are entirely wrong. Nature itself has taken care of the "promoting child-bearing," and that is precisely why marriage is needed.
The purpose of marriage is not to promote child-bearing, but rather to promote responsibility in that activity. While the human species may survive in the atmosphere of perpetual rape sought after by your one poster, society itself obviously would not. Quoting from The Gorilla:
Viewed in that light, same sex marriage is a threat to society: by redefining the institution, it will kill off its most important feature.
Here you have wandered afield of the point as "kill off its most important feature" attempts to imply something as trivial as changing the costume on an actor in the ongoing theater that makes up society. The scenery may change, a new act may begin, but the play will go on. Separating marriage from society's interest in responsible procreation is more like removing the actor entirely. Not only is marriage left a rumpled and shapeless pile, but the play itself is ground to a halt. Marriage, indeed, loses its animating feature, the actor, but society itself, leaving its interest in responsible procreation completely unattended, is destroyed..
Some on this blog and elsewhere postulate that as long as there are a few who continue to recognize the purpose in marriage that those few anchors will be sufficient to hold society together, but that is unlikely and empirically false. Others claim that religion is sufficient to safeguard society's interest in responsible procreation, but that would require the state to develop an interest in religion that Americans find to be constitutionally a bad idea, and, I judge by the anti-religion tirades so common among these comments, so do most of the ss"m" proponents.
Leaving aside the question of whether this argument is persuasive
I doubt many ss"m" proponents will find anything like purpose to be persuasive in the least, as purpose is not what drives the push for ss"m." But it is not the extremist that I am speaking to.
You ended up being the target for my little outburst because you were the most recent person who engaged in what I think of as a serious fallacy. I wasn't processing the identity of the person who wrote it, in my head the progression just went, "First time: no. Second time: really, not so much. Third time: this is just a fallacy. Fourth time: Stop it!" For that I apologize.
I agree with the remainder of your post. Yes, Greeks noticed that some people had certain preferences. They thought exclusive preferences were a little strange, but not great harm - sort of like my thinking it's weird to only eat food with a whitish color. We have a deep cultural belief that our sexual desires say something important about us, are revelatory of our inner natures, etc. Many other cultures didn't. That's all. That's why I tried to draw a distinction between: "Gay/homosexual as category of sexual desire" vs. "Gay/homosexual as category of person."
Proud Generation Y Slacker -
If that wasn't a leading question, it sure as hell looked like one. There've been a fair amount of mind-reading accusations in these discussions, and I was just swept up in the fervor of the mob. But, seriously, you understand how it looks like a leading question?
Why is it Maggie is making the "case" against SSM here, not you? This argument is far clearer and uncluttered.
This is not about adding a new ingredient to the marriage recipe and risking spoilage. It is about removing the essential ingredient, the man-woman criterion that suffices to mark the social institution as conjugal and integrative of the sexes. An apple pie minus apples would just be an unfilled pastry shell.
I've responded more extensively at Opine Editorials.
Unfortunately the more focused Maggie gets in answering the questions, the greater the signal to noise ratio gets.
Allow me to point out what is noise...
Arguement from Personal Incredulity
Far too many posts here seem to be ignorant shouts from people freely admitting how much they don't see. If you don't see it, chances are you missed it.
The heart of this fallacy is one of setting one's self falsley as an authority on the subject. In their own minds their judgements are rolled like boulders from the hill to be taken at face value by people who are less likely to be thinking about the subject, and more likely to be reacting to the subject-matter.
We are all advocates here, no one is set up to judge what has or has not taken place. It is better to argue what has been said, to look circumspectly at the topics being discussed, than to insolently demand as an argument that others simply meet their personal (and ever changing) goalposts.
Amphibology
A catalog of these double-speak words is collected here. Please navigate with caution. Much of the misunderstanding can be traced to poorly navigated language.
Wouldn't a marriage and lifelong commitment be a source of responsibility? A straight one night stand has child-bearing potential, but little child rearing potential. A gay marriage has less child-bearing potential, but more "responsibility", and child rearing potential.
So what is your sticking point?
Thanks to technology, sex has become more than a mere means to produce children. Almost all of the classical reasons where divorce was permitted had to do with sex. Either a lack of it in the married bed, or too much outside of that bed. Now that sex doesn't always entail pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn't entail a 25% chance of death, the fundamental institution of marriage as a gatekeeper to sex will change.
Marriage was originally about property, which wives being little more than elevated concubines. That has changed over time, and with the elimination of the dowry tangibly so. Marriage has been changing throughout all of human history. To deny so is to deny the facts. Stating that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and that marriage has always been about children is pure ignorance.
I believe that is what I said, yes.
A straight one night stand has child-bearing potential, but little child rearing potential. A gay marriage has less child-bearing potential, but more "responsibility", and child rearing potential.
Correct, they both lack the ingredients for responsible procreation.
So what is your sticking point?
They both lack the ingredients for responsible procreation.
Thanks to technology, sex has become more than a mere means to produce children.
No one argued sex was a mere means to produce children. It was argued that sex does produce children, and that a framework of responsibility (ala marriage contract) is a responsible way to choose to have sex. Both for the sake of the partner as well as the children.
Normal marriage brings benefits to society. It gives children a stable structure with a mother and a father to teach them how to be human. It civilizes men. It, in short, makes society possible. It is reasonable, therefore, for society to reward heterosexual marriage.
We know soceity doesn't need homosexual marriage to survive. So, what are the benefits that homosexual marriage provides to society such that society should provide it with the same benefits that it provides heterosexual marriage?
All that I've heard from SSM supporters pretty boils down to whining "I want these things too. I want the benefits, I want the respect." What I've never seen is any sort of rational justification that says that "these are the benefits that SSM will provide for society, and therefore society should reward SSM because the benefits are worth the rewards."
I'm a libertarian. I don't favor government handouts. But that's what the SSM supporters seem to want.
And even Maggie Gallagher found another husband. :)
Take Care -
ZC
Note though that same-sex couples are now adopting 40% of adoptions in the state. That's grossly out of proportion to their numbers, suggesting that PC social workers are favoring same-sex couples over real married couples, and systematically depriving children of fathers and mothers. I support adoption by same-sex couples, but the Goodridge atrocity effectively declares that the state can't and won't even take the child's need for a father and a mother into consideration. That's what happens when the courts say that the laws of marriage and adoption aren't supposed to be about the child's best interest anymore.