Last week I responded to an article by David Blankenhorn in the Weekly Standard arguing that support for SSM and non-traditional views of marriage “go together” and are “mutually reinforcing.” He based this conclusion on international survey data that shows, he claims, a correlation between recognition for SSM in a country and non-traditionalist beliefs. He also quoted from a few pro-SSM marriage radicals in academia who literally embody the tendency of these views to “go together”: they support SSM because they think it will undermine traditional marriage. I responded that, for a number of reasons, this was not a winning argument.
Now Blankenhorn has defended his argument against my criticisms. (1) First, he denies that he has “eschewed” the argument of Stanley Kurtz, based on claimed correlative data, that gay marriage has contributed to the decline of marriage in Europe. Instead, he says that he “embraces” Kurtz’s argument, and is trying only to “build” on it. (This has come as a relief to Kurtz, who initially suggested there might be some disagreement between them.) (2) Second, he argues that it is unfair of me to require him to “scientifically demonstrate” that gay marriage is contributing to non-traditional beliefs about marriage when the correlative data allow us “to make reasonable (if qualified, and modest) inferences about a likely causal relationship” between the two. (3) Third, he claims that while there may be a few anti-SSM marriage radicals who believe gay marriage will actually strengthen marriage, “the dominant, most influential idea about gay marriage” on the left is represented by the marriage radicals he cites and not those I cite. (4) Finally, he challenges me to cite a “prominent supporter” of SSM who has publicly committed to otherwise traditionalist beliefs about marriage (e.g., we should make divorce harder, discourage out-of-wedlock births, stigmatize adultery).
Let’s take these responses one at a time.
(1) The whole point of Kurtz’s work has been to show, mainly through the use of correlations, that gay marriage has caused marital decline in Europe. (Even Kurtz’s correlations are faulty, incomplete, and unpersuasive – but that’s another matter.) In his book, Blankenhorn said flatly, “These correlations [between SSM and non-traditional attitudes] do not prove that gay marriage causes marriage to get weaker. I am not trying to prove causation.” (p. 232) (emphasis original) In his Weekly Standard article, he suggests “giving up the search for causation” and looking for “recurring patterns” in the data instead.
It seemed to me that Blankenhorn was trying to distance himself, at least rhetorically, from Kurtz. I thought it was a wise decision.
(2) It is now clear that Blankenhorn’s argument is structurally and conceptually the same as Kurtz’s, only weaker. Here’s why.
There are a couple of ways one might argue that gay marriage is hurting marriage. First, one might argue that gay marriage has caused problems to marriage itself, like rising cohabitation and unwed childbirths. That is what I’d call a strong and direct claim about the harm of gay marriage. Second, one might argue that gay marriage has caused people to have beliefs about marriage that might, in turn, cause concrete harms to marriage itself. This is an indirect and weaker claim about the harm of gay marriage. Kurtz presents the former, stronger and more direct, form of the argument. Blankenhorn, it turns out, is presenting the latter, weaker and more indirect, form of the argument. Blankenhorn’s argument is thus a poor cousin of Kurtz’s.
Except for that, the arguments are basically the same. Like Kurtz, Blankenhorn relies on what he claims is a correlation to “infer” a “likely causal relationship.” (Blankenhorn is, to his credit, rhetorically more modest than Kurtz about the strength of his own argument.)
What do we make of Blankenhorn’s use of correlations? I don’t think correlations are useless. They might indicate something important is going on. By itself, a correlation could be a starting point for further investigation. It’s a clue that two seemingly unrelated phenomena may be related. But it might also seriously mislead us unless we’re very careful.
Consider the case of smoking as a cause of cancer, which Blankenhorn uses to show that correlations can be valuable because they can help show causation. Yes, there’s a correlation between smoking and cancer. But we know smoking causes cancer not simply because of this simple correlation. Instead, we know smoking causes cancer because decades of careful, replicated, peer-reviewed, and methodologically sound medical research has revealed (1) a correlation (2) that sequentially matches the harm (e.g., lung cancer often follows smoking), (3) we’ve controlled for confounding variables and (4) ruled out multiple other plausible causes of the harm (e.g., auto exhaust or coal-fired plants), (5) and we’ve identified the agent or mechanism (over 70 chemicals in tobacco) that (6) causes a harmful result (tobacco carcinogens damage DNA inside lung cells).
When it comes to gay marriage “causing” harm by leading to non-traditional attitudes about marriage, Blankenhorn gives us only the first of these six. He has only correlation. And even this, it turns out, is suspect.
I’m not just playing with words here and I’m not requiring “scientific proof” analogous to demonstrating pathological processes in the body. I’m asking for a standard degree of reliability in inferences and an accounting when the correlations seem explicable by numerous other factors and are sequentially all wrong (more on that below). There’s good reason to be suspicious of an argument that a correlation allows us to infer a causal relationship. There’s a correlation between people who buy ashtrays and people who get lung cancer, but this hardly proves that buying ashtrays causes lung cancer. If we relied on correlation, we’d think all sorts of crazy things were causally related.
Consider what can be done with a correlation used to “infer” a “likely causal relation.” People in countries without same-sex marriage are more likely to believe women should stay at home and not work, that men should be masters of their households, that there should be no separation of church and state, that people should not use contraception when they have sex, that divorce should never be permitted, and that sodomy should be criminalized. If these correlations exist, have I demonstrated the existence of a “cluster of beliefs” that reinforce one another and “go together,” undermining the arguments against SSM?
Or consider the more sympathetic correlations to SSM that Blankenhorn ignores. Countries with SSM are richer, healthier, more democratic, more educated, more liberal, have more egalitarian attitudes about women, etc. Have I shown that the absence of SSM is likely causing harm in those unfortunate backward countries that refuse to recognize it?
Here’s another correlation helpful to the conservative case for SSM: countries with SSM are enjoying higher marriage rates since they recognized it. Have I shown that SSM likely caused this?
Even Blankenhorn’s correlation is suspect, in a way very similar to Kurtz’s. Non-traditional attitudes about marriage in countries with SSM preceded the recognition of SSM, just as signals of marital decline in Europe preceded SSM. Though I haven’t gone back and checked the previous international surveys from the 1980s and 1990s, I’ll bet my mulberry tree they show that. Besides, even the survey data Blankenhorn relies on show that he’s got a problem. In one survey, the data comes from 1999-2001, before any country had full SSM. In the other survey, the data comes from 2002, when only one country (the Netherlands) had full SSM.
How could SSM have caused a decline in traditional marital attitudes before it even existed? Of course, Blankenhorn is still free to argue that non-traditional attitudes greased the way for SSM, but this doesn’t show that SSM caused or even reinforced non-traditional attitudes. What Blankenhorn needs, even as a starting point, is some evidence that non-traditionalist views rose after SSM. He doesn’t have that.
Of course, even if he had the sequence right, he’d still have the problem of trying to deal with the existence of multiple other factors that have plausibly fueled non-traditionalist attitudes. Here, too, Blankenhorn has the same problem as Kurtz. Just as we can plausibly surmise that factors like increased income, longer life spans, more education, and women’s equality – rather than SSM – have caused actual marital decline, so we can plausibly surmise that factors like these have caused a rise in non-traditionalist attitudes about marriage. And even if the data showed a rise in non-traditional attitudes after SSM, that might well only be a continuation of pre-existing trends. Kurtz has that problem, too, when he tries to show marital decline.
(3) I demonstrated in my last post that there are quite a few marriage radicals who are uncomfortable with gay marriage (either oppose it or very reluctantly support it) because they think it will strengthen marriage. That was just the tip of an iceberg, believe me. Blankenhorn says that he is familiar with these authors and cites them in his book.
But wait a second. While he mentions Michael Warner, for example, it is not to present Warner’s concern that gay marriage will reinstitutionalize marriage but as evidence of the bad reasons gay couples seek marriage (see p. 142). And while he quotes from Tom Stoddard (pro-SSM marriage radical) in the noteworthy early debate Stoddard had with Paula Ettelbrick (anti-SSM marriage radical), he omits even mentioning Ettelbrick’s influential concerns about SSM expressed in the same debate he quotes from (p. 162). (I quoted from her essay in my last post, "Blankenhorn and the Marriage Radicals".)
Apologies if I missed it, but I can’t find any acknowledgment from Blankenhorn of the marriage radicals’ deep unease with gay marriage, an unease that is present in the writings of even those marriage radicals who favor gay marriage. This is a significant and strange omission, one that henceforth opponents of gay marriage must know will not go unchallenged.
Blankenhorn may now say that the authors I have cited and the concerns they have expressed are a minority on the left. I don't know what the basis is for that claim, so I don't know how to assess it. But frankly, it is hard to credit such an observation when his book demonstrates no familiarity with these quite common anti-SSM concerns among marriage radicals.
And why do we care what marriage radicals think anyway? Though prolific in academic journals, they’re a small group and are not very influential in public policy. They won’t be able to control how heterosexuals or homosexuals think of their marriages or how they practice them. Gay marriage will have its effects, whatever they hope for.
Blankenhorn defends his reliance on their writings in his book this way (p. 128):
I believe that my nightmare can even be expressed as a sociological principle: People who professionally dislike marriage almost always favor gay marriage. Here is the corollary: Ideas that have long been used to attack marriage are now commonly used to support same-sex-marriage. (emphasis original)
We could have a lot of fun with “sociological principles” like that. How about this:
People who professionally dislike feminism almost always oppose gay marriage. Here is the corollary: Ideas that have long been used to attack feminism are now commonly used to oppose same-sex marriage.
Or this:
People who professionally dislike homosexuality almost always oppose gay marriage. Here is the corollary: Ideas that have long been used to attack homosexuality are now commonly used to oppose same-sex marriage.
(4) Blankenhorn challenges my claim that conservative supporters of SSM generally believe the following:
(1) marriage is not an outdated institution, (2) divorce should be made harder to get, (3) adultery should be discouraged and perhaps penalized in some fashion, (4) it is better for children to be born within marriage than without, (5) it is better for a committed couple to get married than to stay unmarried, (6) it is better for children to be raised by two parents rather than one
He thinks such people don’t really exist and asks me to name a prominent one. OK, here goes.
As I thought was clear in my post, I believe these six things (though I may not count as a “prominent” SSM supporter). Though I’d prefer to let him speak for himself, I know that Jon Rauch unequivocally supports 1, 4, 5, and 6. On 2, he certainly supports the goal of reducing the divorce rate, but isn’t sure how to do it. On 3, he supports discouraging adultery socially (“stigmatizing it,” as Blankenhorn aptly puts it), but doesn’t want the law to penalize it. And while Andrew Sullivan can certainly speak for himself, I also know that he supports all six, though he also doesn’t want the government investigating or penalizing people for adultery. (Like Rauch and Sullivan, I don't support criminalizing adultery but am open to proposals for attaching some form of civil disadvantage to it. I suggested as much reviewing William Eskridge's book Gaylaw six years ago.) I'd bet David Brooks, a conservative supporter of SSM, agrees with all or most of these ideas in some form — but I frankly haven't asked him. I’m certain there are others in this pro-SSM traditionalist camp. Maybe conservative pro-SSM writers and bloggers will challenge Blankenhorn's suspicion that they're a fiction.
Where have we said all these things? I don’t know that each of us has written about each of them in precisely these terms or in the somewhat different terms Blankenhorn insists we should have. But these views are at the very least implicit in the conservative case, and in some cases they've been made explicit. The conservative case for SSM is now almost 20 years old, going back to Sullivan’s pathbreaking New Republic article, and continuing through his book Virtually Normal, Rauch’s voluminous writings and book arguing that marriage should be the gold standard for commitment and raising children, and my own work.
I don’t have time to chase down sources and quotes for Blankenhorn, but for my own work he could start with the Traditionalist Case for Gay Marriage or look at some of the many columns I’ve written on the subject. If he really cares what I think, he can look forward to a law review article I'll be writing soon on traditionalism and gay marriage. I don’t know how one could come away from all this with the impression that I think marriage is outdated, that high divorce rates are good (I’ve criticized them in numerous debates on the subject with St. Thomas Professor Teresa Collett, BYU Professor Lynn Wardle, etc), that children’s well-being is unrelated to marriage, etc.
As Blankenhorn correctly puts it, we really do “operate[] from a very important shared intellectual and moral framework,” which is what makes the SSM debate among conservatives so much more interesting than the tired debates between the pro-SSM marriage radicals and anti-SSM marriage traditionalists. They really have nothing useful to say to each other. By contrast, I've suggested ten principles upon which conservatives, both pro- and anti-SSM, can agree. They give us a lot of common ground.
In conclusion (!), I wouldn’t usually use this many electrons responding to a single article or book. But Blankenhorn’s book is unusually well-written. And intellectual guilt-by-association has an easy appeal that may make his argument that these bad things all "go together" an anti-gay marriage mantra in the future. Like Kurtz’s superficially frightening correlations, now largely ignored on both sides of the debate, Blankenhorn's argument has to be carefully unpacked to show how unsatisfying it is.
P.S.: If you haven't had enough, see some further thoughtful comments about Blankenhorn's argument by St. Thomas Law School's Robert Vischer.
P.P.S.: Rauch has now finished reading Blankenhorn's book and calls it "the best piece of work that the anti-gay-marriage side has yet produced, containing much to admire despite its flaws."
P.P.P.S.: Maggie Gallagher weighs in: "The question is: what is the main idea SSM advocates are asking us to embrace and what implications over the long term will accepting this core idea about gay marriage have for our ideas about marriage in general?"
I have yet to have one person anywhere, any place, tell me that they are getting a divorce primarily because gay people can get married in massachusetts and Canada and a few other places. I have yet to see any person claim that they love their spouse less, or have decided against getting married for these reasons. I've put the challenge out there, only to have people dismiss this as childish. Yet no one can point to any person anywhere who has done so. One would think that if gays can so singlehandedly destroy such a strong institution that has lasted for thousands of years, you could come up with thousands of such couples, perhaps millions. But no.
But, people are also born crippled, blind and with various other abnormalities and we consider these to be birth defects. Is it not possible that a person born gay, without an interest in normal reproduction is also the product of a birth defect? If so then the question would be do we want to celebrate and encourage this particular birth defect.
The left wing theory is that all people and cultures are equal and who are we to judge, let’s celebrate everyone. This has taken especially deep root in the deaf community where some apparently are starting to believe that being deaf is better than being able to hear and I think I read that they are aborting their children if they are not deaf. In any case they are preferring deaf children and actually believing that deaf culture is something special to be preserved rather than a defect to be cured.
Getting back to gay culture, an overview of life on Earth shows that reproduction is the purpose of nearly all life. An attraction to the same sex, precluding reproduction seems clearly a defect as compared to all species of life on Earth. Why would we want to celebrate it and support it rather than try to find a cure or a way to prevent it? We don’t celebrate blindness. Or an inability to walk due to a birth defect. Why should we pretend that gayness is normal and equal?
While I am sure the details of, for example, this particular offering are extremely scintillating to those who are interested in it, it is somewhat annoying for the rest of us to have to scroll through screens and screens of text to get to the next topic.
Surely the code is simple. And the full text is there for those who wish to read it.
> "I have yet to have one person anywhere, any place, tell me that they are getting a divorce primarily because gay people can get married in massachusetts and Canada and a few other places."
Lets say you really believe that is what is being said. Its not and I don't believe you really think that (for reasons below). But lets just that you really believe that if people get divorced primarily because marriage is neutered for the sake of homosexuality.
You've never show me one same-sex couple that broke up primarily because of their inability to get a marriage license. You won't because honestly you can't. You know that isn't how it works, yet you pretend it is a requirement anyway.
Much of what I learned in the other thread (from Colin's example especially) was that the double standard is well enforced on your side. For instance you also said:
> "I've seen on these boards that the facts don't matter, history doesn't matter, and even personal experience doesn't matter."
So show us one fact that was ignored, one historical event or record that was left unmet, and one personal experience that was disregarded.
Yet the facts on what "parentage" means didn't matter in the last thread, the history of homosexual acceptance and marriage definition didn't matter, and the personal experiences of children who wished their childhood involved their natural parents didn't matter.
Without the path to residency and citizenship afforded to bi-national, heterosexual couples who marry, gay couples are forced to try to sustain relationships through extended separations and all the stresses and expenses of travelling back and forth between countries (sometimes illegally). Two couples I know gave up after seven years of trying. Three others chose to emmigrate to Canada (and took their valuable engineering skills with them).
There are many cases of couples who had to separate so that one of the partners didn't lose custody of his or her children by a previous marriage. The courts often view cohabitation without marriage as a disqualifier for custody (though many only seem to notice the "innapropriateness" of such living arrangements when the couple is lesbian or, even worse for some reason, two men).
I'd consider the risk of divorce and alimony to be a pretty big civil disadvantage.
That's the beauty of the Kurtz et al position - SSM weakens marriage in the abstract, without actually weakening anyone's marriage, thus no data is required to prove that this weakening occurs.
You've never show me one same-sex couple that broke up primarily because of their inability to get a marriage license. You won't because honestly you can't. You know that isn't how it works, yet you pretend it is a requirement anyway.
I would think the accurate analogy would be how many same sex couples are likely to get divorced if opposite sex couples cannot get married?
How many opposite sex couples would break up if the state didn't recognize any marriages? What would that prove? Your analogy isn't analogous at all.
If he's abandoned the term "causation" for weasel word phrases like "go together" then someone needs to send him a copy of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."
> "We could have a lot of fun with “sociological principles” like that. How about this:
I'd be interested in the examples to this. I'm sure there are ideals in feminism that Dale disagrees with, it all depends on how radical one wishes to go (which I presume is Dale's point to a degree). But what ideas does he cite that have attacked feminism that are commonly used to oppose neutered marriage?
With how thorough Dale has been on the other points, that would be an interesting investigation. I believe the correlation between his principles and what Blankenhorn suggests would be strong evidence against what Dale is trying to say.
As Fitz points out, while some can describe the change to the marriage institution as "neutering the definition" one can also say that the gender composition of it is simply androgynized. The androgyny of male and female in feminism can certainly be taken to an unhealthy radical extreme, or be a healthy way of acknowledging that gender doesn't matter. The bottom line is that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
But that is something both arguments have in common, the androgynizing of the sexes. Only in the case of marriage, it plays to the most radical extreme of that case -- and there is no "half pregnant" kind of middle ground. Is a mother and father important and unique in the eyes of their children? Is the equal dignity that Dale wishes were enforced through neutering the marriage law possible as long as there is an ideal that children be born with their parents married beforehand? Read the comments in the previous threads to find out for yourselves.
An "overview of life on earth" (whatever that means) shows nothing of the sort.
Is an attraction to the calling of a Catholic priest "precluding reproduction" a "defect as compared to all species of life on earth?"
Or as Garrison Keillor once put it, "there's a reason the iPod was designed in California, not Alabama."
> "Without the path to residency and citizenship afforded to bi-national, heterosexual couples who marry, gay couples are forced to try to sustain relationships through extended separations"
1) Seperation is not breaking up.
2) Your example relates to immigration laws and not the marriage license. If there were an immigration law that accommodated them without the license they would be fine.
But even more interesting is the polygamist version of your argument has also been made. Does that mean you are pro-polygamy, or do you recognize the argument as insufficient in and of itself to compel altering marriage laws?
> "There are many cases of couples who had to separate so that one of the partners didn't lose custody of his or her children by a previous marriage."
Separation is not breaking up. Beyond that, I can't comment except to point out that even re-married couples can lose custody depending on the courts evaluation of the new circumstances.
> "That's the beauty of the Kurtz et al position - SSM weakens marriage in the abstract, without actually weakening anyone's marriage, thus no data is required to prove that this weakening occurs."
Neutering marriage weakens the ability of marriage to address social concerns. This is something that Badgett gets wrong (Carpenter cites him above) in that he feels the marriage rates indicate the strength of marriage while out-of wedlock rates are just a curious non-story. What that really shows us is that while Carpenter tries to be reassuring, he can't help but inadvertently point to how much one has to abandon marriage as a mooring of procreation responsibility to even accept his data and perspective in the first place.
> "I would think the accurate analogy would be how many same sex couples are likely to get divorced if opposite sex couples cannot get married?"
Since no one is suggesting that we make marriage homosexually exclusive, I don't see that as a relevant analogy at all. What I see is that same-sex couples are harmed (in this case breaking up is the analogy to divorce) because they don't have a marriage license to their relationship.
> "How many opposite sex couples would break up if the state didn't recognize any marriages?"
That is a good question, as someone in the previous thread mentioned that he is against any recognition of marriage and he demonstrated belief in all the tenants of marriage belief that Carpenter outlined.
Carpenter is clearly is a dreamland that his belief in marriage at all shows that he is different than people ideologically opposed to marriage.
> "If he's abandoned the term 'causation' for weasel word phrases like 'go together' then someone needs to send him a copy of Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language.'"
You should simply read Blankenhorn for yourself, as Carpenter's representation is clearly giving you a poor understanding.
You asked for examples. You dismiss them, of course. (As my people say, "quelle surprise!")
I await On Lawn's passionate call for immigration rights for elderly, spinster sisters...
In Canada the marriage rate of both-sexed couples continues to go down, not up.
The basic rate is calculated from total marriages performed within Canada and the total population of Canada. Add foriegners and you get a slightly padded result. Add foreign same-sex coupes to the same-sex rate and you get an inflated result. To do a correct before and after, it is necessary to look at both-sexed marriages apart from same-sex couples.
The composite rate (of both-sexed and same-sexed couples) includes the unusual contribution of same-sex couples from the USA which has inflated the already low marriage rate in Canada. The participation rate of the Canadian homosexual population is as low as other places with state registration of same-sex relationships.
In Scandinavian countries the statistics on marriage are misleading, apart from anything to do just with SSM. That is unfortunately not news.
The recent slight uptick in marriage rates has occurred in the context of the already very depressed marriage rates in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. The uptick reminds me of like the old salesman's saying, that a percentage of nothing is still nothing.
Meanwhile the rises in unwed cohabitation and in nonmarital births have continued apace.
The slight uptick in marriage rates has been accounted for -- by local scholars -- by two large contributing factors: the catching-up by older people who have delayed marriage; and remarriages amidst the large pool of divorced people.
In both factors the rising unwed cohabitation trends play a big part because older couples are more likely to delay marriage until the arrival of a child -- sometimes until a second child -- and even that sequence has been diminishing in prominence -- especially amongst younger couples.
All of this shows marriage is in freefall in Scandinavian couuntries.
In Sweden there is little room left to fall before it hits bottom. Denmark and Norway are not far behind. This context hides the higher rates of dissolution that manifest in unwed cohabitors -- with and without children -- which in turn masks the increased risk of dissolution for previous cohabitors during their subsequent marriages or subsequent unwed cohabitations. This doesn't bode well for the next generation of children.
Dale Carpenter mentioned Eskridge. Well, Eskridge has argued that the unwed cohabitation trend in Scandinavia is not a net negative. That may or may not be so, it is a judgement call, but it rather goes against Dale Carpenter's claim that SSM might strengthen marriage as a social institution.
Okay so the starting point might be about twenty years ago. That would coincide with the SSM campaign's timeline in Scandinavia, which in turn, is the context for what occured in Holland.
The timeline for Ontario and Massachusetts overlap, as does the timeline for Canada and the USA. This is reflected in the count of same-sex relationships registered in Canada: more than half include foreigners and most of these are Americans from places with state DOMAs and marriage amendments. Something similair has occured in Holland and Scandinavia countries where immigration rules incent registeration.
So the starting point might be in the mid-1980s with key flashpoints in different countries during the mid-1990s.
To Mr. Carpenter, perhaps you can suggest (and defend) some criteria by which to determine a reasonable starting point for comparison of attitudes and behaviors toward marriage.
That said, Blakenhorn's effect probably still exists, and I think one of the first steps for supporters of same-sex marriage is to own up to the reality of criticisms like Blankenhorn's. Same-sex marriage is a change that would have great effect on the views of people who would not have otherwise understood marriage to be a social construct. Such a change is also likely to have some diminishing effect on traditional marriage as some people who would have settled for an opposite-sex marriage will instead pursue a same-sex marriage. Finally, there is likely to be a social cost in any behavior that deviates significantly from the behavioral norms on which much of society is built.
The case for same-sex marriage isn't to deny these, but to show that they would be overshadowed by the societal benefits of same-sex marriage.
I would argue that the thing that truely caused marriage to become obselete is womens rights and their ability to support themselves without being legally bound to a man. I (obviously) have very progressive views on this subject.
What I think is key to this analysis is a look at the relationship between homophobia and traditional views of marriage/procreation etc. To try to pretend that this is only a legal question and has nothing to do with a negative view of alternative sexuality and gender roles is to ignore an important aspect of the issue. Some people hate gay people, some people fear them, and some just don't understand them, and because of this they do not see why gay people should be given rights. And it is likely that these people claim to be "protecting" marriage, so as not to appear to be bigoted.
(an Aside... I can't tell you how many times I wrote Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation on papers back when I was a Stats TA. It was a lot. It seems to me that progressive views of marriage would lead Same Sex Marriage, just as much as they would declining marriage rates. I think the analysis is extremely flawed.)
I would like to think everyone here could list at least two items regardless of what side of the debate they are on.
Am I correct in remembering, for example, that sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria? So is sickle cell anemia a "defect" or a beneficial mutation?
Anyhow, the origin of homosexuality is hardly in line with the topic of the thread. Please excuse my tangent.
> "Perhaps you didn't read carefully, On Lawn. I said the two couples 'gave up' trying to stay together. They broke up."
I don't appreciate having my argument misrepresented, and neither would you. I asked for examples of couples who broke up primarily because they didn't have a marriage license.
You gave an example where people had to live long distance relationships due to immigration laws. If they gave up due to a long distance relationship, or immigration laws that isn't primarily because of lack of a marriage license. Instead of supporting your claim, you simply accused me of trite dismissal. I'm sorry but these are examples of trite dismissals, I only asked you questions about your own examples. I the end, you are abandoning your examples. I don't have to dismiss them.
> "You asked for examples. You dismiss them, of course. (As my people say, 'quelle surprise!')"
On the contrary, I didn't dismiss your argument -- you did.
I demonstrated that there was a polygamy allegory to the immigration connundrum. Relationships are seperated, relationships with children are seperated, because polygamy which is recognized internationally is not accepted in the USA. You were asked to comment whether or not their case was sufficient to alter marriage law. Instead you dismissed the entire discussion -- your argument included -- rather than deal with the question.
> "I would argue that the thing that truely caused marriage to become obselete is womens rights and their ability to support themselves without being legally bound to a man. I (obviously) have very progressive views on this subject."
That argument strongly mirror's Kurtz's on Scandinavia. It is the ability to survive (expecially with welfare) outside of marriage that makes it obsolete. The same thing can be observed, I would argue, in the african-american decline of marriage.
But I read Carpenter as arguing that marriage isn't outdated, though I admit he undermines his own conservative claim by proposing a dramatic change to the institution of marriage in order to ennervate it.
Anyone? "Suppressor effects?" Remember those?
Kind of strange, really.
This is, of course, a strawman argument. Opponents of SSM often claim that it is bad because it weakens traditional marriage. Given this claim, it is reasonable to ask the opponents for proof.
AFAIK, proponents of SSM have never claimed that the absence of SSM was bad because it causes gay couples to break up. So demanding proof of something they never claimed is sort of silly. What SSM proponents do claim is that the absence of SSM causes them to suffer various legal and other disadvantages vis-a-vis traditionally married couples. These claims are easy to support (off the top of my head - tenancy by the entirety, intestate succession, insurance coverage, hospital visitation).
I think it would be a more productive argument if you addressed claims actually made.
But most people who post here are probably in the United States, and that's not usually how things work here. I think Americans marry too lightly and get divorced too much, which is a much bigger problem than committed couples failing to file the legal paperwork.
People who oppose gay marriage seem to fear that allowing it will encourage society as a whole to take marriage even more lightly than it does now. That's not an idle concern, and I think gay marriage advocates should emphasize that the whole point of the campaign is to take marriage seriously. The individual rights approach, whatever it may be worth in court, does not make this point politically. Focusing on the social importance of committed relationships can help with this.
(This is in parentheses because it's off topic, but one of the reasons marriage is in trouble is precisely that weddings are such a big deal. So much of social life revolves around weddings that people have them who really shouldn't. Or at least not before sorting out their relationships a bit more first.)
Think, if one were to rectify the situation would you change the immigration laws or the marriage laws?
On Lawn writes:
>> "I don't appreciate having my argument misrepresented, and neither would you. I asked for examples of couples who broke up primarily because they didn't have a marriage license."
> "This is, of course, a strawman argument. Opponents of SSM often claim that it is bad because it weakens traditional marriage. Given this claim, it is reasonable to ask the opponents for proof."
I should thank you, really. You've pointed out afresh the double-standard that exists for people to treat marriage so rudely -- and justify it for themselves. You call it a strawman, but then why do you repeat the same argument as your own?
> "AFAIK, proponents of SSM have never claimed that the absence of SSM was bad because it causes gay couples to break up."
Actually, you should read BobNSF who did just that. So here we have two people on the same side disagreeing what the main thrust of neutering marriage is. No suprise, Carpenter has been struggling with that now for three articles.
> "So demanding proof of something they never claimed is sort of silly."
The point of the matter is that you are applying a double-standard. While the arguments to defend marriage do say that the marriage institution is weakened, you interpreted that to mean that divorces must exist with a causal relationship. When the arguments to neuter marriage say that homosexual couples are harmed without marriage licenses, you deny that means there has to be any breakups at all.
Thats a double standard, and one that I feel expresses just how advocates of neutering marriage don't really believe in the arguments they make. If they did believe in them, they'd treat their own case with the same expectations. If they did believe in them, they wouldn't back away from the arguments when applied to people other than their biased and select group.
> "What SSM proponents do claim is that the absence of SSM causes them to suffer various legal and other disadvantages vis-a-vis traditionally married couples."
What marriage defenders claim is that the institution of marriage is dramatically altered from a powerful expression of humanity in reproductive responsibility, to just romantic triviality. That is a mechanism that is specific and observable, btw. Every state that has same-sex marriages also has completely removed the requirement for equal gender representation in marriage. The correlation is 1.0. The mechanism is that gender segregationist relationships require that gender integration be devalued and demoted, and the removing of the requirement preceedes the other.
Carpenter's response is duplicitous and twofold... He simultaneously says "But so what?" to the actual evidence, and then claims that he still believes that children should be born in a marriage and that marriage stay in-tact. The reconciliation seems to be that it is okay for them, and will persist even without the direct reference in marriage requirement. When backed into that corner he says it will "survive", but otherwise does his best to say that it won't be harmed at all -- in fact it might be strengthened.
Meanwhile Dale ignores the great cry from the majority of the neutered marriage movement, who also say "But so what?" and give more frank assessments. Much like Shinobi above. Much like the Beyond Marriage project.
To be frank myself, Carpenter's approach is more an exercise is social engineering in and of itself. It is meant only to minimize resistance instead of applying an independant claim of marriage with an incremental approach. It is meant to diffuse any blame people might have on his agenda through vigorous application of plausible denaibility. It contextually implies marriage as a romantic recognition by the government hoping that by re-defining it in his context will eventually re-define it for everyone. And that this change will strenthen marriage, rather than weaken it from its status.
> "These claims are easy to support (off the top of my head - tenancy by the entirety, intestate succession, insurance coverage, hospital visitation)."
And you don't need to show actual break-ups -- and that is the point.
> "I think it would be a more productive argument if you addressed claims actually made."
I agree with that entirely.
Do you support the Uniting American Families Act?
> "On Lawn you were given an example of where lack of marriage license caused a couple to creak up. It was not due to immigration laws."
No I wasn't for the reason you state next...
> "The immigration laws say nothing about same sex marriage."
Meaning, they could have a marriage license in Canada or some other country and they would have the same problem.
> "Rather it was the fact that marriage laws do say such a thing, and thus the couple could not be married."
Only he cites exampes of where they were -- in Canada.
> "This caused the immigration problems that were cited."
So really, you put the cart before the horse.
> "Think, if one were to rectify the situation would you change the immigration laws or the marriage laws?"
I'm awaiting Bob's answer to that, and I'd invite your answer also. Specifically in the example of polygamist marriages, only to take you outside of any homosexual bias or chauvanism that may or may not exist. Is your position and reliance on that argument consistent or just prejudiced?
Good question. I could endorse it, but I have one qualm...
"The term `permanent partnership' means the relationship that exists between two permanent partners.'"
That definition is ambiguous, their relationship is defined as their relationship. And the word permanent doesn't seem to have any meaning either as the permanance is just until they find a new "permanent partner".
I dunno, do you think that wouldn't water down the requirement to the point of being a mere formality?
Governments got into the business of defining and regulating marriage because of children and defining the obligations of men to support their wives and biological children. Why? Because women were in an inferior legal status, and a woman--especially a woman with children--was at great risk if her husband fell down on his duties, or abandoned them.
None of this applies to same sex couples. They can't have children. (Adoption and children from previous heterosexual relationships are handled sufficiently by current law.) The argument that, "The wife stayed home raising kids for ten years and needs to be supported," does not apply to a same sex couple, and increasingly doesn't fit traditional marriages anymore, because so few mothers stay home with their children.
What this boils down to is that same sex couples want everyone to say, "You are perfectly normal." This is why civil unions aren't sufficient to satisfy the activists--because civil unions are a reminder that homosexuals are not like others.
There's no question in my mind that the courts will eventually impose SSM throughout the United States, with no legal basis. I keep hoping that when that day comes, it will lead to the transformation of our legal system so that lawyers are no longer allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.
The UAFA details the definition of "permanent partners" [See Sec 2(2)(51)]. IMO, this definition is not more watered down than marriage (which is just as "permanent" until a divorce). The INS (USCIS) would apply the same criteria in reviewing sham relationships for marriage and permanent partners.
However if you disagree and cannot support this legislation, how could an American citizen sponsor their same-sex, loving partner for a green card other than having the federal government recognize SSM or civil unions, something you appear to oppose.
> "However if you disagree and cannot support this legislation"
Thanks for showing that there is a workable, verifiable definition of permanent partners. Though I'm still dubious about it being too watered down.
My own views of immigration are deep and intensely interesting, I'm sure. But I can't help but notice that you must have an answer to the question I posed earlier also. What is your own answer?
If a man and woman get married today in Massachusetts, do they have a neutered marriage?
Do all heterosxual married couples in Massachisetts have neutered marriages?
If a heterosexual couple marries in New Hampshire, then drive to Masssachusetts, does their marriage become neutered?
If a couple marries in Massachusetts, and has a neutered marriage, can they drive to New Hampshire for a weekend respite from the neutered status?
If a heterosexual married couple is lost in the woods near the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border, can they determine what state they are in by observing if their marriage is neutered? How do they make the determination?
If a man and woman are married by a priest in a Catholic church, under the applicable rules of the Church, are they in a neutered marriage? Does the Church agree?
If the answer to any of the above is "yes," what are the specific and observable characteristics of the Massachusetts heterosxual marriages which differ from New Hampshire heterosexual marriages? (This will help wayward hikers.)
I failed to mention the Catholic couple is in Massachusetts.
> "If a man and woman get married today in Massachusetts, do they have a neutered marriage?"
Depends. By marriage do you mean the institution they belong to or their relationship between each other?
The neutering of the marriage definition is an institutional change, and the effects are seen the relative values of each institution for society. One could put it simpler though, they no longer have access to the institution that recognizes and promotes responsible procreation. Whether the watered down form of marriage still has value or not is their own judgment to make.
Your other questions read to me like immature mockery. If you wish to understand the position, understanding that marriage is an institution as much as it is a single relationship is the first place to start. One can reference one or the other or both, but you should understand the reference first.
And that couple is still lost in the woods.
I note that you cite to your own misleading characterization of the exchange, on your own echo-chamber website, rather than to any actual post of mine. Classy. You also misspelled “cowered.”
I won’t take your bait. What I learned from the Opine visitors is that you argue from rhetoric, rather than evidence or logical premises. There is no practical, productive response to the ad nauseam repetition of “marriage and non-marriage,” or the barely sensible “gender-integrative” and “gender-segregative” gabble, especially when it's repeated four or five times by you, Fitz, and F. Rottles in tag-team. Asking for evidence or an articulation of the harms of gay marriage produces, at best, thirty intertwining Opine posts of what can be accurately paraphrased as “non-marriage just can’t be marriage because we say so, and besides, people will sell their children to the gays if we gender-segregate a non-conjugal relationship in a way counter to the marriage purpose.” Rather than help bog down Professor Carpenter’s thread with another round of that, I’ll bow out. The signal-to-noise ratio of your ongoing blather expresses, better than I am able, the vacuity and intellectual bankruptcy of your advocacy.
You did not make it clear if you support or oppose the UAFA?
I oppose allowing a married man to sponsor their second wife for a green card. IMO, polygamy as it is practiced is abusive to both women and children.
> "Does this mean it is possible for the institution to be neutered, yet no individual marriage is neutered? "
In a previous thread, you defended the right of Carpenter and others to use the phrase "gay marriage". I use the term neutered marriage to describe the change. You said:
Yet, not all marriages are gay or even same-sex under your proposed change. So on one hand you defend the ability to call the new institution a different name, but on the other hand you seem to chaff at the distinction in reference that I use. Why is that?
What is neutered? Our understanding of marriage is neutered, our way of describing marriage is neutered, our definition of marriage is neutered. That perspective and application applies to each marriage to one degree or another, there is no doubt about that. But the application of the term is from the perspective of the state, which is indifferent to the gender composition of the union. Each individual perspective may or may not match the state definition (which you argued previously).
You should simply admit that your aversion to recognizing the change in marriage is sending you flailing like a school child on the playground avoiding the end of recess.
As a example of OnLAwns point referring to same-sex "marriage" as neutered marriage (and also my androgyny language)
One example: Gendered language such as Husband, Wife, Grandmother Grandfather, Bride, Groom, Mother, Father, are (after adoption of same-sex "marriage") not simply under inclusive-- rather as a legal matter are simply not accurate. That is - they no longer are valid in describing the institution as an institution. They may be applicable in any given instance, or even a same-sex couple could use them in reference to themselves. As a legal matter however (which is vested in the accurate use of terminology) they are simply not accurate descriptive terms as to the institution.
Example: Notice the use of Partner A &Partner B on Massachusetts marriage licenses and Progenitor A &B on Spanish Birth certificates.
Umm, I don't know, TruthSeeker. Do we let blind/crippled people marry? Should we?
Well, I guess everyone is not a fan of the site.
Apparently this is way over your head. Getting married has nothing to do with being crippled, but has everything to do with sexual orientation.
The equivalent to gay marrieage for crippled people would to make all sidewalks and floors padded and encourage them to crawl everywhere. But we don't do that. We give them artificial limbs and wheel chairs so they don't have to be crippled. We remedy the problem not encourage it.
> "I note that you cite to your own misleading characterization of the exchange"
More flailing, from a different sort. Colin's example falls short of his own requirements, yet he lets it pass. There is clearly a double standard taking place.
> "on your own echo-chamber website"
I'm not sure where you get that impression. However if it were an echo-chamber it is only because people such as yourself feel that pretending to be aloof is easier than meeting the arguments presented. It is easier to come here and make a bunch of unfounded, and inaccurate accusations rather than go there and make a point of your own. No?
Prove me wrong. Go there and just tear it apart. We only delete comments for profanity, you can read in that very thread where someone was challenging our views. We let them have their say, but apparently he didn't have much to say at all.
That's funny, Mr. Cramer, because as I see it, it all boils down to is heterosexuals (and closeted homosexuals)refusing to accept that homosexuals are indeed "perfectly normal." And by "normal," I mean just as worthy of the rights that their fellow citizens have simply by virtue of being born different.
Shinobi stated it eloquently, so I'll merely repeat his words:
"Some people hate gay people, some people fear them, and some just don't understand them, and because of this they do not see why gay people should be given rights. And it is likely that these people claim to be "protecting" marriage, so as not to appear to be bigoted."
The issue is the social institution of marriage, the nature of which is both-sexed.
Clayton E. Cramer has it correct. Make the case for a special status for the one-sexed arrangment -- the chief feature of which is presumed (by SSM advocates rather than the rest of us) to be homosexual sexual relations. Now, is that the core, the essence, the nature of the one-sexed arrangement you think is worthy of being treated as marriage?
Marriage integrates the sexes (i.e. man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother) and provides contingency for responsible procreation (the man and woman who create a child are both the biological parents and the social parents. This does not fit the one-sexed arrangment -- whatever sexual orientation you wish to attribute to it.
The issue is whether or not society ought to continue to treat the nature of marriage as worthy of preferential status.
You mistake the marriage debate for an opportunity to promote freedom for the homosexual population. Well, there is no liberty denied when two men, or two women, of whatever sexual orientation, choose the nonmarital one-sexed alternative to marriage. They choose nonmarriage. That is an exercise in liberty. It is not a right denied by marriage recognition.
Is there a reason why someone who doesn't plan to reproduce, a straight person, may want to get married to another person?
You were answered in the other discussions. Your arguments were met fairly.
Your argument from Legal Requirements [LINK]
Your reliance on the observable facts [LINK]
Your confusion in the legal arena [LINK]
Your attempt to switch topics midstream [LINK]
For someone posing as a "just the facts" lawyer on the internet, you present yourself as ill-prepared for this marriage debate.
Thus, what I said earlier may now have expired with the emotional outburts in your most recent comment:
I had said [LINK]
Readers can judge for themselves whether or not what I've said is sensible and on-point. Somehow I cannot give your claim much credence that the nature of marriage is irrelevant to marriage recognition. But if nonmarriage is to be treated as marriage, in your headspace, I guess were are at an impasse.
Apparently this is way over your head. Getting married has nothing to do with being crippled, but has everything to do with sexual orientation.
Why? Because you say so. In fact getting married has nothing to do with sexual orientation either.
The anti-SSM side (to my knowledge) has never claimed that any particular couple would respond to gay marriage by freaking out and saying 'ohh my god they let gays marry so maybe we should get divorced.' The claim has always been that SSM slightly weakens the institution of marriage. If true we would expect to see the marginal cases of marriage (people hovering on the edge of divorce, unsure about getting married) to be influenced.
If the anti-SSM side was correct we would just expect to see couples feeling less compelled by the idea of marriage and experiencing less social stigma for transgressing it's rules (breaking up, having affairs). Hence noting that we don't see people claiming that SSM caused them to break up proves nothing.
Anti-SSM Crowd:
First of all (and this applies to everyone) to prove your point you need to show that your arguments are valid and the best arguments against your position are invalid. Showing that some people on the other side have a double standard (why not an honest mistake?), are ideologically biased or whatever does nothing to prove that you have the evidence on your side. Now on to the substantive issue.
To be precise the question we are asking is: does the legal recognition of SSM increase the number of divorces and out of wedlock children over and above what they would be in a society who favored SSM. No one is contesting the fact that the same social forces which result in recognizing SSM might also weaken marriage.
In general correlation only suggests that the two factors are related in some fashion, e.g., they both have some common cause. Studies showing smoking and lung cancer are correlated suggest a cause while the correlation between ashtrays and lung cancer does not because smoking is the most plausible causal explanation of the correlation. However, In the case of gay marriage we already have a plausible causal mechanism to explain the effect which doesn't suggest SSM weakens marriage.
I mean common people your own belief that liberals are ruining things by campaigning against traditional marital values and supporting SSM tells you to expect a correlation between countries that recognize SSM and those that have less traditional views of marriage. Even if legally recognizing SSM strengthened marriage you would still expect to see this correlation! Hence finding that correlation tells you nothing about the effect of legally recognizing SSM.
In short since we would expect this correlation whatever the effects of SSM it adds nothing to your intuition that SSM will weaken marriage. Since those intuitions are suspect (likely to be influenced by moral/social attitudes to gays) and many of us have opposite intuitions this means your case is very weak. In fact I think there is a good argument to be made that the abscence of gay marriage gives anti-marriage forces an important cause to rally around thus strengthening their position.
--
As an aside I have no problem recognizing polygamous marriages (tho the use of these to abuse children must be stopped) or even platonic marriage like relations. In fact I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Who I have sex with is none of the government's business and it shouldn't affect who I can file tax returns with or visit in the hospital. We should let all these things be decided by private contract.
Given that everyone here is so libertarian and conservative in other areas why are you willing to support government involvement in marriage at all?
Shor answer: Probably, yes.
However, pregnancies occur despite plans and intentions. We probably can agree that the core of marriage recognition is contingency for contraception or abortion.
Plans change. Intentions change.
And circumstances during marriage will certainly change -- often in surprising ways -- and not always in ways that we can control through choice or force of will.
With all of that, the contingency for responsible procreation comes with marriage recognition. I am not referring to recognition on a case-by-case basis. We recognize the social institution into which the individuals enter as husband and wife.
So, sure, the individualized choice can be made based on various reasons (or no reasons) minus an individualized plan to create children during a conjugal relationship.
The individualized reason(s) don't supersed the nature of marriage. That's how social instutitons work. Now, sure, I see that the SSM argument would replace the nature of marriage with some other set of ideals and would push integration and procreation to the sidelines. This would be a change in the public shared meaning of marriage that is taken as part of getting married -- whatever the individualized reasons of this or that husband or wife.
Great question, Logicnazi. Perhaps those who claim to be (1) for government recognition of marriage for two people of opposite sex; (2) against government recognition of marriage for two people of the same sex; and (3) libertarian, could enlighten us?
I strongly disagree. We had in this thread the example of a binational couple who cannot stay together because immigration law treats married people differently. There are many other such examples that impact on liberty as well.
Great question, Logicnazi. Perhaps those who claim to be (1) for government recognition of marriage for two people of opposite sex; (2) against government recognition of marriage for two people of the same sex; and (3) libertarian, could enlighten us?
No problem here, I'd be happy to see the government (especially the federal government) withdraw from subsidizing marital relationships. It's not like people need that excuse to get married. However, since that's not going to happen, I'd prefer to see those subsidies more equitably distributed.
The reason why people want to get married, Clayton Crammer said gays want to get married is this
Crammer is being simplistic in this example, perhaps he wanted to create a strawman by generalizing a very large group of people and say they have one goal one interest. This is foolish, groups of people, hell even individuals are pluralistic in their thoughts, motivations, and reasons. There are so many reasons why a gay couple want to get married, just like there is so many reasons why a straight couple want to get married
F.Rottles you may say the "real purpose" of marriage is X (X being responsible procreation and the integration of the sexes). You then say that is also the goverments interest in marriage. Just because it is the "real purpose" in your mind, doesn't mean that is the same reasons motivate other people to wanting to get married.
Marriages have so much more "utility" than the arguements you have listed, it has so many more benefits than responsibile procreation and the integration of the sexes. Marriage does so many "good things." To say that is the only reason we have marriage and to say that is the only reason people (gay or straight) want to get married is being disengious to the thoughts and motivations of millions of people, the world is far more complex than you are describing it.
I did indeed observe people would continue to call the marriage of two guys a gay marriage. That means their particular marriage and relationship would be called gay marriage. The aggregate of such marriages would also be called gay marriage.
However, I note you do not call a particular Massachusetts marriage a neutered marriage. That makes sense; I wouldn't either. So who cares if the institution is neutered if it doesn't effect any particular marriage? If no particular marriage is effected, the characteristics of the institution are only a curiosity.
But, it is a relief to know all those heterosexual Catholics getting Catholic marriages in Massachusetts are not entering into a state of holy neutromony.
Ah no. SSM is the artificial limbs and the wheelchairs. Anti-SSM is saying you are fine as you are crawling around.
That's easy.
(1) To the extent that government is doing something, that something should be available to all people. ("Gay people can marry the opposite sex" isn't an answer.)
(2) Thinking that (1) is true is not incompatible with thinking that the government shouldn't be involved at all, any more than thinking that, say, while the IRS shouldn't exist, it also shouldn't double-tax people with blue eyes.
(3) I consider myself a libertarian, but am finding myself pushed to the left as a practical matter more and more these days.
How odd that the conseravtive family value folks are driven to depend on Darwin, who normally is anathema to them, for their case! A more robust world view would accept that human life at least may have deeper purposes than simply churning out copies of human DNA. Not to mention this hyper-materialistic viewpoint also condemns as failures non-breeders as diverse as Jesus, Plato, Elizabeth I, Beethoven, George Washington and Mother Teresa.
Re: All of this shows marriage is in freefall in Scandinavian couuntries.
Huh? Marriage is marriage, no matter how old the bride and groom. Dismissing unsupporting data out of hand is not a very honest way to make an argument.
Re: This context hides the higher rates of dissolution that manifest in unwed cohabitors -- with and without children .
Single parent families are actually rarer in these countries than in the US (if you count cohabiting parents as de facto married, as the law used to do even in this county. See: Common law marriage)
Re: This doesn't bode well for the next generation of children.
Maybe take a look at outcomes for Swedish children? Health and nutrition factors. School graduation rates. Deliquency. Substance abuse problems. There's some trouble in the last category (may be something to do with the long, dark winters as Russia and Alaska and even Greenland have similar troubles), but you will find that Swedish children compare quite well with American children in all other areas.
Re: it is no longer the venue for property transfer, or the venue through which women are supported in the world(back when we couldn't own property, run businesses, vote etc).
American women couldn't vote 100 years ago (except in Wyoming), but they could and did own property, and the idea that no woman ever worked outside the home 100 years ago is laughable.
Re: What makes SSM not only "okay" but legally required, but not polygamy?
Number and gender are very categories. The latter is a biological accident, while the former is one of the most basic logical categories there is-- you can inmagine a world withiout gender. A world without number is impossible to conceive (except as a panetheistic, undifferntiated monad). In legal terms extending the franchise to people formally disallowed did not create an argument in favor of allowing plural votes to the same person.
Thank you for your kind comments. I submit that five (5) screens of post on the main page is way too many, and is rude.
That is the false dogma that we've been brainwashed with. The truth is your sex life is everybody's business.
Wow! What a revolutionary idea!
The fact is, everyone's sex life is everyone's business with the exception of masturbation, perhaps, which has no or little effect on anyone. Otherwise, whom you are doing it with implicates all of society insofar as these things lead to the birth of children, the spread of disease, can create social instability, disrupt society (adultery, for instance), affect demographics, and so on.
It is a lie of the Playboy Philosophy and the sexual revolution that private sex acts are just that and nobody else's busines. Sex has very public consequences.
You see if Dale did what you request him to do, anybody that reads his post would have to click on the "show" link he would have to devise. Thus either you will have to push the page down key, or people that want to read his writing will have to click the "show" link. No matter what someone is going to have to waste 3 more seconds.
Why is it a red herring? Because gay marriage doesn't have to harm necessarily traditional marriage only in order for it to be undesirable to society. If gay marriage increased the number of auto accidents, that would be sufficient to oppose it. Maybe gay marriage would not harm traditional marriage, but the damage it creates could lie elsewhere.
But, first, let's be honest. Marriage has never been, and never will be, the ideal to which most gays have ever aspired. The issue of marriage is being used as part of the homosexualist's quest for social sanction of their behavior. The very few gays who may sincerely want to marry will have the effect of legitimizing the sexual choices and practices of the many who do not, and will not, want to marry. It's supposed to make homosexuality OK, to give it respectability, make it an equally moral choice, to remove all stigma. It's really more about collective group therapy than attaining the social ideal of a faithful and monogamous relationship, because this has never been the ideal among gays. The true ideal among most gays is more about and sexual freedom and its unbridled male sexual expression, which is far more easily found with other like-minded males than it is with females, because a male really knows how men like their sex.
Like drug use, gambling, prostitution and other similar vices, the problem inherent to the homosexualist utopia, the so-called "gay lifestyle," are no different from the same problems that any of these other activities would create. We know from observing real life that these create and perpetuate an undesirable and dangerous social climate, the real "cluster" that glorifies self-centered hedonistic pleasures, but also the spread of diseases, social and mental instability, addiction, crime and so forth. Whether a causative factor can be identified is beside the point; it is only sufficient to observe. The problem with homosexuality, then, is not so much the isolated act or the fact of being homosexual, but the undesirable social climate created and perpetuated by the selfish pursuit and glorification of carnal pleasures. This is a state of arrested sexual development more appropriate to a 15 year old than a mature adult. No society has survived such a philosophy and way of life.
I include a revealing commentary from a gay man who claims to be fairly representative of the gay community that sums up fairly well my thesis. I did not make up the idea of the homosexualist ideal. Homosexuals, themselves, affirm this.
From: bearfist2005@(deleted) 03/31/06 08:38 pm Msg: 182 of 2721 on Yahoo forum:
"Gay Marriage is from the Lesbian Asimilationists who want to mimic straight people. The Lesbians have grabbed the forefront of the Gay movement since the onslaught of HIV has killed so many Gay Male leaders in our community. Most of us Gay men don't want to pretend we're in the straight/monogomous (sic) role-model, which is becoming more unpopular among [even] straights. I don't plan on marrying any one man, I have had long term relationships that were deep and committed, just not monogomous (sic) or should I say monotonous. Free Gay men do not want to become nice little queens-next-door. The "marriage" seeking is just a way of saying "Please don't kill me--I'm a human being just like you." However, I have no desire to settle down,"have children" and become nice little republicans. Most Gay men I know feel the same way. This "marriage" push comes from a small segment of Dykes from rich families and is jumping so far ahead of the national protection for employment and housing that we need much more than "marriage" laws."
Not legally recognizing gay marriage, then, will have the effect of refusing to legitimize the promiscuity and hedonism so glorified in the "gay philosophy", and sends the signal that responsible sexuality, procreation and family is still an enduring ideal to which men and women might aspire.
Symbolism has its value, also, and the fight is over the meaning of that symbol. That is the value of marriage and why it should be protected and supported as it is.
Gays and others in relationships that are not procreative and family supportive should more logically petition for civil unions, reciprocal beneficiaries or something of that sort.
Three important words: Liberty, Autonomy, and Self-Determination
Yes my sexual actions affect a lot of people, regardless they don't get a say in my actions in this sphere. Society doesn't have the power to choose my mate, society doesn't have the right to force me to reproduce or not to reproduce, no one has this power besides myself.
Sex has public consequences, just because it has public consequences doesn't grant society complete authority over my life. If you believe society has or should have this authority, you might as well throw out the declaration of independence and much of the enlightenment philosophy.