Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Protecting Marriage to Protect Children

Normally I don't post this kind of thing on the boards. I'm just not a fan of political arguments. However I thought this one was interesting because of who had written it.


Elisabeth
PS Let me know if I'm getting people in trouble by posting it in it's entirety. I wasn't sure how to do a link at the host site.


Commentary: Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
by David Blankenhorn

Note: This column first appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 19,
2008.

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those
positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love
relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part,
because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the
intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all
opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace
this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the
California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage,
and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its
features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In
all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of
parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not
primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to
receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to
have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next
generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core
dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one
pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man
and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love
and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child
born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the
child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed
without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost
no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the
cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it
simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher
and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of
conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few
decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children
alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to
be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 — just
moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so — a team of
researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported
that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the
family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two
biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development,
what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who
together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make
it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought
them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the
world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last
time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of
internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning
children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable
group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his
birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover,
losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least
most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an
unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of
sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and
the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone,
including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one
another about what our society owes its children is crucially important
in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which
would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that
every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for
those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you
suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you
imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per
child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer
than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the
case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite
willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course,
are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many
cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus
good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the
child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these
two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal
dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my
heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her,
I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to
strengthen the only human institution — marriage — that is
specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our
children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex
couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in
those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate
homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for
all of us the very thing — the gift, the birthright — that is
marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a
change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for
American Values and the author of The Future of Marriage.

The opposing argument doesn't make much sense to me. How exactly are heterosexual marriages harmed by the fact that homosexual couples respect the institution of marriage?

I really can't agree with this article. Sure, in the past, an unmarried mother was unthinkable, looked at with scorn, and punished by society that in many ways. But in today's society, marriage is not for the primary benefit of having children. Yes, the social stigma still exists, but in many places it's so slight that it almost makes no difference.

Another point that I really can't agree with. After all, there are many children without parents, adopted and unadopted, who are also "denied their birthright". The majority are born to parents who didn't want them or couldn't keep them, the rest are orphans who will never get to meet their parents. Sure, some are adopted by loving parents, but there are many that spend their lives bounced around between orphanages and foster homes, never having a stable home and two loving parents.

Now, the difference I see between the two types of marriages with children, is that the homosexual couple has to go through steps to have kids. It's thought-planned, and (usually) both parents really want the kids. Heterosexual marriages (or non-marriages, as mentioned above) are not always so. There are parents who didn't want kids to begin with but stick with it, and later resent it. There are the parents who have "accidents" who love their kids, but aren't really prepared emotionally. Who can say that which upbringing is really better overall?

I agree with both Karen and Marcus.

I'm heterosexual and happily married. I cannot see any way at all that my marriage is threatened by same-sex marriage - and I know people who are married to their same-sex partner (here in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal and now accepted as quite normal) and their relationships are stable, unremarkable and happier than many heterosexual marriages I know. I work with one half of a lesbian couple who have just had a baby, and they're incredibly happy and the baby's being showered with every bit as much love as the children of heterosexual relationships I see around me.

As Karen says, anyway, aren't children supposed to be better off with two parents, not one? I thought that was the argument of the social conservatives over the past 20 years or so.


Wendy

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were committed, loving partners for over 50 years, yet were denied the right to marry until California legalized gay weddings. But the right to marry is available to any heterosexual couple who drive to Las Vegas and pay $55 for a license, regardless of how drunk they might be. It is discriminatory to deny marriage rights to GLBT partners, just as it used to be wrong to deny those rights to interracial couples.

Proponents of Prop 8 are using all sorts of scare tactics and justifications for their cause, but Prop 8 is not about children. Children are not necessarily the reason for, or end result, for all marriages. Should my marriage be invalidated because I had a miscarriage? Should my friend's marriage be invalid because she's unable to bear children? Should my other friend be prevented from marrying her fiance since they've both agreed in advance that they don't want to have any kids? Of course not.

It is not my place to impose my sense of morality on someone else. What takes place in someone else's marriage is not my concern. But everyone is responsible for protecting the American dream - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting No on Prop 8 will allow everyone to have equal access to that dream.

I agree with the other replies in this thread.

The thing that bothers me most about the article is that the writer seems to have completely overlooked the fact that not every straight biological parent is fit to be a parent. I've seen countless examples of married and unmarried straight couples and single parents that prove to be quite a hazard for their children.

He's also completely forgotten that there are many other ways for a child to be "be denied his
birthright to both parents who made him." How is being adopted by a straight couple any different than being adopted by a gay or lesbian couple in this respect?

I happen to know a woman who was adopted and raised by a lesbian couple, and she's absolutely one of the most well-adjusted people I know. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to some people, but it furthers my own belief that as long as a child is in a loving, safe environment, it doesn't matter what race, religion, or gender their parent(s) happen to be.

I disagree with the article also. I know of a very loving homosexual couple who were raising one partner's biological child when that partner became ill with cancer. Because they could not marry, the other partner lives in constant fear that he will lose the child after his partner's death.

How does that protect the child ?

I find this article confusing, because, while the author claims to be a liberal democrat, the organization for which he works is about as right as they come. It's fine by me if he's on the right, but why pretend otherwise.

Also, I would like to see some more data on why he feels marriage is primarily a legal agreement for reproduction. That may have been the case when the institution was first proposed, but that hardly seems the case now. Most people I know see marriage as a way to concretize their relationship in the eyes of those they love--regardless of whether they plan on having children some day.

Not to mention, the idea of marriage in this context seems to ignore the high divorce rate in this country. If marriages are entered into "for the children" why are people then divorcing since, presumably, they realise this is harmful to these same children?

I find it hard to buy an argument that seeks to take down homosexual marriage when it has so many questionable claims regarding heterosexual marriage in the first place.

I noticed that the replies are unanimous in rejection of this article (and an implied acceptance of same-sex marriage).

Marcus asks how heterosexual marraige is harmed by acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Karen compares a child born to a heterosexual couple with one adopted by a homosexual couple, and asks who can say which upbringing is really better overall.

Wendy asks if children are not better off being raised by a homosexual couple than by a single parent.

Capes asks for more data on why marriage should be defined as a legal agreement for reproduction in this day and age of divorce and childless couples.

Wendy, Groobie, Cape Fetish, and Allie all give anecdotal evidence of happy, well-adjusted same-sex unions.

To all of the above I offer the same set of questions:

1. Do you believe society has the right to define and regulate marriage? For example, in our society a person cannot marry (a) a minor*, (b) a sibling, parent, or other close relative, (c) a person who is already legally married, and (d) a person of the same sex. Do you believe our society has no right to place any of these restrictions on marriage, or do you simply believe that restriction d is unfair and unjust?

2. If you believe that society has the right to place restrictions on marriage (such as a, b, and c, above), what should the criteria be? How should society determine which restrictions to apply?

3. Are your questions retorical? If opponents of same-sex marriage could provide honest and valid answers to your questions above, and to any other questions you might have regarding the affects of same-sex marriage on society as a whole and children in particular, would you rethink your acceptance of same-sex marriage?


* - with some exceptions, such as the age of the minor, and parental permission. Still, our society has defined the exceptions it will allow.

Well, it seems to me, Vicki that there can hardly be comparisons between the examples you suggest.

In the case of the minor, there are sound reasons for the restriction as they are judged not to be emotionally, physically and mentally mature enough to cope with marriage. They are children, not adults.

In the case of the sibling, parent etc there are considered to be undesirable genetic reasons why marriage is not a good idea.

And in the case of someone who is already married - I assume you're talking about societies which consider themselves to be based on monogamy. In which case there would seem to be sound reasons why marrying several people at once would be a bad thing.

I don't see any connection whatsoever with any of the above to the situation of men/women who want to embark on a same-sex marriage.

They are adults and can therefore, presumably, be trusted to speak for and decide for themselves. There are no genetic barriers to them being in love, having a sexual relationship or marrying. And the relationship would be a monogamous one, therefore falling just as ably into the current legal framework of our society as a hetrosexual marriage.

Would these honest and valid answers be fact? Or simply opinion? Even biased opinion? It seems to me that they could hardly be anything but the latter. Even the question has bias as it seems to imply that the only effects a same-sex marriage could possibly have on society or children would be wholly negative. And by further implication that any 'evidence' which suggests there might be positive effects would not be honest and valid. So as evidence, it would seem to me to be greatly flawed at the outset, even before it was presented.

And if you're suggesting that 'evidence' could be presented by those opposed to same-sex marriage of examples where such marriage has harmed society as a whole or children, then my response would have to be "And...?"

Those who aren't opposed could equally provide examples of dozens, hundreds, thousands of cases where the same was true of hetrosexual marriage.

This week, the UK has been in an orgy of hand-wringing and self-examination after the death of Baby P, who was sadistically tortured by his mother, stepfather and their male lodger. Would you - could you with any degree of logic - suggest that he would have been any more at risk had his parents been homosexual?

Homosexuals are individuals. As such their experiences of marriage and of raising children will cover the full range from good to bad and all things in between, just like their hetrosexual counterparts.

So I can't see that this evidence you suggest might be out there would prove anything either way.

LabRat

Just to state what I think here. Marriage, in my opinion, must be an institution between two consenting adults whose mental faculties allow them to understand what it means to commit to and be responsible for a relationship. They must not be siblings, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild or any other very close blood relation. And... hmmmm, I guess that covers it.

Ann

Labrat,

I'm not quite sure what connects the first three restrictions on marriage, either. The only connection seems to be that society has decided these types of unions would be bad ideas, each for a different reason.

As far as the validity or honesty of arguments which claim the existence of sound reasons why society might consider same-sex marriage a bad idea, may I suggest you seem to be engaging in a logical fallacy known as the "straw man". By presenting my (supposed) arguments for me, and then knocking them down, you do me an injustice.

I know that your position is based on what you truly believe to be a tolerant, charitable, and loving attitude towards all members of society. I also know that proponents of same-sex marriage do not, as a rule, assume the same about their opponents. Rather, we are assumed to be intolerant, uncharitable, and, yes, even hateful. Thus, our arguments are dismissed as "biased" before they have even been presented. How sad.

To be honest, I'm still waiting to see an argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on child-rearing (which we have already discussed in this thread) or religious values, or tradition. I sympathise with your point that some supporters of same-sex marriage (and I'll say 'some' rather than a more blanket reference) leap to the conclusion that opponents come from a position of intolerance rather than listening to the arguments. But what are the grounds for opposition?

Religious opinions are certainly offered as a reason. I would ask, in response to that, why society should govern based on the religious principles of one group within that society? There are religious groupings still opposed to divorce, for example. Most religions and denominations oppose abortion. Both of these are available, within certain restrictions, in just about all democratic societies.

Tradition... well, I don't think I really need to address that, do I? Society changes, what we deem to be acceptable as a nation changes. Racial equality, universal suffrage, the ending of child labour: once time or another all of these and more were opposed on arguments of tradition.

So, instead of asking us why we favour same-sex marriage (and you've expressed our position very nicely), can I ask why you oppose it?


Wendy

I don't plan to get involved in this particular debate, but I did want to respond to this statement that Vicki made:
Vicki, you're expressing dismay in the way that you feel that opponents of same-sex marriage are often viewed by the proponents. That they are stereotyped as all being "......". And I can't deny that there are some people who probably do feel that way. But by your using the phrase "as a rule", you appear to be lumping most proponents into the same category. In other words, you're stereotyping that side in a similar fashion to what you feel they do.

But unfair as it is, people stereotype those who hold opposing viewpoints all the time. Although we've been able to hold a number of very fair and rational discussions on these boards, it's happened here too.

If you automatically expect bias "as a rule" from proponents of the same-sex issue, then aren't you stereotyping them, assuming that most - if not all - of those "on the other side" are thinking negative things about you. If you assume the worst from most of the members of one side; and if they assume the worst from most of the members of your side, where's the difference?

Kathy

Kathy,

As a rule, I have found my generalization to be true. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that ALL the proponents of same-sex marriage that I have spoken with have come right out and told me that they hold this view. They do not have any qualms about announcing quite publicly that they consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be an indication of bigotry, bias, and intolerance. And believe me, I have spoken with many, many proponents of same-sex marriage. I have also seen this view expressed on blogs, message boards, etc., as well as written on signs at pro-same-sex marriage rallys and the like.

However, if you or others on this message board do not share this negative (and, quite frankly, false) opinion of opponents of same-sex marriage, I am delighted to hear that.

That was, in fact, the purpose of my third question. To determine it those supporting same-sex marriage were open to an honest discussion of the pros and cons, or if they had pre-determined that any argument by the opposition would be summararily dismissed as biased and invalid.

Vicki, to be honest, I had trouble making sense of your third question. That's why I posted what I did, asking you what your opposition is based on.

There are valid, research-based and scientifically-proven reasons not to allow siblings to marry, for example. There are also very good and objective reasons not to allow minors under a certain age to marry. I have not seen any scientific or objective arguments against same-sex marriage. Seriously, the only arguments I have seen in opposition to same-sex marriage are arguments which appear to be based on values which are not shared by the whole of the community in which we live.

Now, if what you're saying is that supporters of same-sex marriage reject those values-based arguments, then, yes, we do. Because we don't share those particular values, or don't share them to the same extent. I'll be honest and tell you that this reminds me of old debates on equality for women and the civil rights movement.

Now, you're automatically assuming that we're going to ignore any arguments you make and accuse you of intolerance. Well, I haven't seen anyone do that yet, so - with Kathy - I'm just a little bit offended at your assumption I've already offered you an opportunity to explain your opposition - and I really am interested. I'd like to know. I'm certainly not going to say that you might convince me - I doubt that very much, just as I doubt that I could convince you. But do at least do supporters of same-sex marriage the courtesy of believing that we'll listen to what you have to say and that we'll agree to differ with respect if we do disagree.


Wendy

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic itself, but I've seen what Vicki's talking about.

I think part of it is that the most vocal supporters are *generally* [not all, but all I've ever seen] the... more vehement supporters. The same is true of just about any cause. The most vehement/vocal/radical supporters [or opposition] *tend* to think that of those that are on the other side and can't [or don't] engage in reasoned debate but resort to name-calling etc.

The 'normal' folk are more likely to be like Labby, Wendy and Kathy and the rest on the boards, IMO. [Not that Labby, Wendy, Kathy or anyone else around is actually *normal*. /runs for cover ] Most of them are calm, reasoned people who can - and do - participate in rallies, but aren't the 'agree or die' radical types. The 'agree or die' radical types are the one who tend to get on the news and in everyone else's faces while Labby, Wendy, Kathy, etc will engage in a reasoned debate but aren't going to get in your face about it no matter what the original topic of conversation [you know, where you start talking about the weather in line at the grocery store and ten minutes later are listening to a tirade about *fill in the blank topic*].

That's my impression of the people you're talking about, Vicki. You've met, read, etc the radicals, not the everyday supporters.

The same is true of radical pro-lifers, radical pro-abortioners [as opposed to pro-choicers, though I've met a few really radical of those folks [not folcs]], radical pro/anti-anything [hunting, gun ownership, legalizing drugs, adoption/foster care by gay couples [which my husband, who is anti to disinterested in the gay marriage thing, fully supports due to his work with kids in foster care], etc], not just those on either side of the gay marriage debate.

Does that make sense?
Carol

I can only speak for myself, so please don't take this as a blanket statement. I want to explain why I'm opposed to "gay marriage". I use quotes because, to me, the word "marriage" is the issue here.

To me, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man, a woman and God. I was raised ultra-conservative and, while I've certainly overcome most of the "thou shalt nots" of my early years, marriage is still sacred to me.

If equal rights for all is our end goal, can we call it something else? A civil union. Or a domestic partnership. Or something, anything, else. I have no issues whatsoever with any intelligent and well-adjusted person of any color, creed, race or sexual orientation having the right to inherit their life partner's property, or take on their legal responsibilities or adopt children or any of the other rights that a married couple can assume.

Is it asking so much to reserve the word "marriage" for one man/one woman?

Sorry for not coming back. Frankly, since I don't hang out on the off topic boards I forgot that I started this thread.

First, the danger to marriage in general is that when a definition includes everything than it suddenly means nothing.

Second the reason you hear most about childrearing is because, frankly, most people who want to preserve the definition of marriage that has been observed for a couple thousand years don't care about anyone's sex life but their own. Speaking for me personally, I could care less about homosexuality but I realize how precious each child is.

Everyone who has ever had a mama and a daddy know that women and men parent in a vastly different manner. Both of these parenting styles are important in the development of a child.

As for the case of abuse from heterosexual couples, I will admit that marriage is already fouled up. There are abusers who should not have access to children. Also the divorce rate isn't what it should be. But the fact that marriage is already broken isn't an excuse to try social experiments.

I have to say that I wonder why people want to fight for something they don't want to participate in. If someone is desperate to marry, then they probably would have taken the opportunity to marry when it was offered. Yet only there was only about 1 in 4 same-sex couples married in California when given the opportunity to. In Connecticut civil unions, which offer the same benefits as marriage except for the name, have been legal for years. Yet only 1 in 5 of same sex couples have chosen a civil union.

So if it isn't about sex and it isn't about benefits (if it was about benefits more people would have signed up), then I wonder what it is about?


Elisabeth

Wendy, I am at a loss here. Did I misunderstand what Labrat meant when she said the following?:

It seems fairly straighforward to me. I am unlikely to have actual facts to back me up. Indeed, my perceived bias is so great as to render me incapable of forming even a so-called "informed opinion". No, any answer I might present could hardly be more than biased opinion.

My bias is go great, apparently, that my arguments can be declared flawed and invalid, even before they are presented.

So, yes, just as has happened in the past, I was met with allegations of bias and my arguments were declared invalid before they are even presented. I responded to this by saying that I understand that proponents of same-sex marriage have good intentions, and I am saddened that the same courtesy is not extended to me.

For which I am now reprimanded, and told to please do supporters of same-sex marriage the courtesy of assuming they will listen to me.

Several FoLCs have presented examples of gentle, loving same-sex couples who have been good people (as far as we can tell about any other person), and I'd like to take this opportunity to link to an incident which took place on November 9th in Lansing, Michigan. All the links describe the same incident.

Michigan-based politically right website

Church-related website

You tube report by independent writer (Jason Goldtrap from Florida)

Catholic Online News Service

I do not intend to imply that the majority of gays and lesbians would be involved in such an action. Nor do I intend to imply that such actions would be secretly applauded by most gays and lesbians. But it is significant that I learned of this outside the usual national news outlets. Even Fox News has not reported this.

If it were only one fringe right-wing blog reporting this story, I'd be inclined to dismiss it. But unless someone can dig up more information than I've been able to find, I'm inclined to believe that it happened as reported. And if it did - and the story was buried - it opens the question of whether or not there is a passive conspiracy to suppress such stories of attacks by radical gays on straights. If this attack actually took place as described, should it not be labeled a hate crime?

(Proposition 8 in California amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Here is a Fox News\' story on the protests.)

The incidents in the Proposition 8 passage which have been reported bother me too. Those are on the local and national news reports, and it's interesting to listen to the determination of some gays and lesbians to overturn the majority vote of the people of those states. There have been related protests in other states where the Proposition 8 language was not on the ballot.

The voters of the US have spoken: we've elected a black man to be the President of the United States. There aren't nationwide protests to reverse that vote, but there are nationwide protests against the passage of Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in other states. Why should we listen to the voters on the one issue but ignore them on the other?

I'm going to respond from my own perspective on this, and I hope you'll see it as courteous debate; I do not intend to be disrespectful to anyone's beliefs.

Anubis said:

Well, yes, it is, because what you ('you' referring to opponents of same-sex marriage who use this as your argument) are saying is that your beliefs should dictate how everyone should live their lives, whether or not they share your beliefs. In my opinion, that's not what a pluralistic, democratic society is about.

Elisabeth said:
Fair point. Maybe they're fighting for the right to be able to do it if they want? I hesitate to bring the abortion debate in here, but I use it only for one small comparison, and that is this: many pro-choicers actually say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they don't want to be denied the right if they ever felt that it was their only option.

"Social experiment"?

Vicki, I'm not going to comment on your exchange with LabRat. I wasn't part of that exchange, so I'm a little disappointed that you're assuming what my response will be in advance of your inviting it. I'm feeling a little slow right now - blame seasonal allergies and forthcoming surgery - so forgive me for saying that I'm actually a bit lost as to the precise point you're making to LabRat and she's making to you.

Regardless, I'm not part of that discussion and I asked a simple question: tell me why you're opposed, and I will listen without prejudice.

ETA: Terry, I've just seen your post, and I hope you know that reasonable supporters of same-sex marriage deplore violence and threats of violence in support of this cause, just as reasonable conservatives deplore violence against gays. I do deplore it - but it's exactly the kind of thing that happens in debates and struggles over these sorts of civil liberties issues. There were violent factions in support of women's equality. There were certainly violent factions in support of black civil rights. Doesn't mean that the majority supports them, but it's a fairly inevitable consequence.

I am rather taken aback that you equate the election of a black president with this issue. That being said, I am hearing from friends that some groups - and I have no idea how widespread it is, but there are certainly individuals in Texas and some have said in other states too - are arguing that states should secede rather than 'put up with' a black president. I have no words.


Wendy

An issue that gay rights supporters have with civil unions/domestic partnerships is that they are not legally equivalent to marriages. For example, a married gay couple or registered domestic partners are not treated equally under federal tax law. Look at California\'s publication from 2007 taxes to see all the hoops RDPs had to go through to comply with the differences in federal and state tax laws. Look at this publication to learn about California RDPs to understand how domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. From the pamphlet:
One of those rights is in regard to immigration status. If a gay couple enter into a RDP and one of them is not an American citizen, the partnership can not be used to secure permanent resident status; in fact, the RDP can be used as evidence against the non-US citizen in an immigration hearing. A non-US citizen who marries someone of the opposite sex does not have the same immigration problems.
Partners who are considering binding themselves to a life-long commitment do not do so lightly. Just because the opportunity to marry in California was open for a few months does not mean that everyone should have rushed into the decision to get married. Many straight couples live together for years because that is the level of commitment that works for their relationship at the time. Gay couples are not so different.

At the heart of the issue is that a domestic partnership is not equal to a marriage. If people want to preserve marriage as a religious ceremony, then I would have no problem with all legal marriages in the US being referred to as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", so long as that status is equivalent in all respects regardless of whether the relationship is gay or straight. What matters to me is the legal rights and responsibilites that come with marriage, and the fact that current laws are seperate and not equal.

Although I support gay marriage, I don't feel strongly enough about it to plead passionately for it on these boards.

However, in response to Terry, I feel the need to talk about something else, which is the hatred and threats that gay people often meet from the rest of society.

First of all, Terry, I strongly disapprove of the kind of demonstrations that gay people in America have apparently carried out against churches just a few days ago. Personally I think it is plain wrong to disturb a service, and I disapprove of demonstrators who allow the actual message they want to bring to the forefront to be drowned out by their own nasty behaviour. (And I can't stand demonstrators who cover up their faces.)

Still, if you compare the kind of violence that gay people have carried out against churches with the violence that gay people have suffered at the hands of straight people - well, I don't doubt for a second that it's the gay people who have borne the brunt of the violence.

I'll post a link to an article from 1999. It's in Swedish, so you can't read it, but it's about the murder of a Swedish ice hockey player, a gay man, in 1995:

Ice hockey player murdered by Nazi

The ice hockey player, Peter Karlsson, made a pass at a young man outside a bar. Unfortunately for Karlsson, the young man was not only a Nazi who hated gays, but he was also armed with a knife. The Nazi stabbed Peter Karlsson 64 times. Can you imagine? Sixty-four times!!!

I pretended that I held a knife in my hand, and then I lifted my hand and brought it down as if I was stabbing someone. I did it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again and again and again and again and....

How much do you have to hate a person to stab him sixty-four times?

This murderer, the Nazi, was nineteen years old. Mostly for that reason, he got a reduced sentence, eight years in prison. But the judge also ruled that it was necessary to consider the insult the young man had suffered, when the homosexual man had propositioned him. The judge felt that the young man had somehow had a reason to stab another human being sixty-four times, the reason being that his victim was gay and had made a pass at him.

I find this case totally, completely shocking. The only good thing I think you can say about it is that today no murderer in Sweden would get a reduced sentence because he felt insulted by a gay person who had propositioned him.

Ann

I can't presume to speak for the various homosexual couples out there, but I think it's safe to say that many of them also follow a religious faith. In western society, many heterosexual couples who wish to make a public statement of the love and the commitment that they share choose to be married. And for many of those, they might view it as what you said, Anubis, a holy sacrament between them and God.

For a homosexual couple, what's to stop them from feeling the same way? So for similar reasons that the word "marriage" is important to you, then it might also be for them.

And I was not aware until just before posting this of the various legal hoops that couples in legal unions have to jump through, so that could easily be an issue for many. I don't remember how soon after same-sex marriage was legalized in California that talk started about placing a proposition on the ballot to oppose it, but it wasn't long - so I can understand why many people might have waited to see what would happen. Assuming that Proposition 8 isn't overturned, what happens to the couples who did indeed marry here in California in the interim months? Their marriage would no longer be valid - even though they would have had the opportunity to share their joy in a marriage ceremony, that would be yanked out from under them, and all they'd have left is a bittersweet memory. I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

Kathy

Wendy wrote:
I did not and do not equate the two. I compared the two. It is not the same thing. The comparison I wished to draw is that the country as a whole is not protesting the election of a black man to the presidency, even though forty-eight years ago (1960) he could not possibly have run on either major party's ticket. Yet large, organized groups of gays and lesbians are protesting the passage of Prop 8, and many of them are not being polite about it.

I am not surprised that you would hear that there are people agitating for secession. It's the kind of "how crazy are they" filler which news stations and networks run to gain ratings. There is no serious grassroots campaign to leave the Union in Texas or any other state.

I don't care that our new president-elect is black. His general skin tone was determined when he was conceived. If our new president were gay, however, that would be different. Despite the debate over the issue, no one has located a "gay gene" or genetic code to force people to be gay. People who are gay choose to live a gay lifestyle. It is a personal choice.

Whether that choice is right or wrong is a separate but related issue. However, I have yet to see any objective scientific evidence that the gay lifestyle is predetermined within an individual. Therefore it can be debated as a choice, not as something which cannot be altered.

And I do not mean that "being gay" is any kind of illness from which one may be cured. It isn't caused by a virus, bacteria, fungus, or spore from Venus or Mars. It's a personal choice, and that's where the discussion should begin.

According to USA Today, more death threats have been made against Barack Obama than against any other President-elect.

USA Today also reported about burning crosses in people's gardens, about dolls hanged in effigy and about a poll where people could guess the date and the means of Barack Obama's murder.

Ann

Wendy,

Just to clarify - I was not at all assuming your response. I was surprised to read that this is what you thought I was doing.

I was rephrasing Labrat's response, to make it clear (a) how I interpreted her words and (b) how those words were, in my opinion, doing exactly what you had just said you had not seen anyone do yet.

[edited to add the word "not", which I had mistakenly left out of the first sentence.]

A society governs based on the principles of its citizens. In a society where the majority of people are religious, yes, the principles of the majority will conform to so-called "religious principles". In a society where the majority of people are not religious, the principles held by the people may well differ from "religious principles". So what?

Perhaps, for example, you believe that marriage is a basic human right, and that forbidding same-sex marriages is the same as forbidding interracial marriages. Based on those principles, you might vote in favor of same-sex marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that men and women have basic innate differences. Men and women are of equal value but they are not the same. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and all that. (By comparison, for example, I believe a person's skin color is as insignificant as his/her hair color.) I also believe that society has a right to define marriage. Based on those principles, I would vote against same-sex marriage.

We all vote based on our principles, regardless of where we obtained those principles. I am missing your point as to why voting based on religious principles is any less valid or less democratic than voting based on the principles held by a non-religious person.

But I wasn't talking about voting. I said why should a society govern - in other words, why should laws be enacted - based on the principles of one group in society? I'm making a philosophical point here based on the principles of democracy. Yes, the majority of Americans identify as having religious beliefs (and I won't get into the fact that there is no one set of beliefs shared by everyone who identifies as being religious), but one key safeguard in a democratic society is that the majority does not always rule - there have to be protections for minorities. This is why I make the point, and I firmly believe, that one set of values not shared by an entire community or society shouldn't necessarily be imposed on that community or society as a whole - especially if the majority group in society still has its own rights protected anyway.

Terry, thanks for clarifying your earlier post, which had me a bit confused. You know we simply won't agree on the nature v choice debate around homosexuality, which of course affects where we're both coming from here. None of the gay people I know believe that their orientation is a matter of choice. They simply are attracted to people of the same sex as themselves. So, no, I don't agree that the discussion should start at 'personal choice'. But, yes, I think we are on the same page on the fact that you will find crazies and extremists everywhere, and that these reactiond do not reflect the views and behaviours of the majority of reasonable people on either side.

You know, this does remind me of similar debates and struggles over inter-racial marriage; the arguments were in many ways similar there. These days, I don't think anyone on these boards would argue that a mixed-race couple shouldn't be allowed to marry - just as, in the country of my birth, not many people would object to marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic any more, yet while I was growing up and before I was born what was referred to as 'mixed marriages' were seen as abhorrent and in some cases led to murders. I truly believe that in 20 years' time same-sex marriage will be virtually a non-issue. But it's going to be a difficult adjustment period on all sides until that happens.


Wendy

In a park in my hometown of Malmö, there live a pair of moderately famous birds, a pair of gay mallards. Are these two feathery fellows actually a pair of lovebirds who engage in real homosexual activities? Or are they just birds of a feather who stick together so diligently that they forsake all others? Who knows? But their behaviour is... kind of queer. Were they born queer? Or did they use their birdbrains to actually choose a queer lifestyle? Who knows?

But birds are birds and people are people, so you can certainly argue that my flighty ramblings mean nothing at all.

Gay mallards in Malmö

Ann

Wendy,

I was responding to your post, which was in turn responding to Anubis's post. Anubis cannot enact legislation, she can only vote for legislators who will enact laws which she agrees with. That is why I placed the emphasis on our vote. Our vote determines the legislators, who then enact the laws.

Anyway, I agree with you that there need to be protections; it is not a straight majority rule in that the majority cannot vote to violate the rights of the minority. Where you and I disagree is in the definition of a "right". I disagree that we have a "right" to marry anyone we want - as demonstrated by the four exceptions enumerated in my original post. Within these guidelines, we can marry whomever we chose. But we do not have the right to marry a minor, a close relative, a person who is already legally married, or a person of the same sex.

Members of NAMBLA may argue that their "right" to marry minors is being violated. Members of the splinter sect of Mormonism may argue that their "right" to marry multiple partners is being violated. Gays may argue that their "right" to marry someone of the same sex is being violated. All three groups can claim that they are unfairly burdened by these restrictions, as other members of society have no desire to marry a child, have multiple partners, or marry members of the same sex. I can only respond that the laws are applicable to all.

Do you really believe that there are differences between the races comparable to the difference between the sexes? I already mentioned the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." Can you explain to me what the innate difference between blacks and whites might be?

No, because I don't believe that there are innate differences! My point is that 60 years ago - or less, even - many people believed that it was fundamentally wrong for blacks and whites to intermarry. Now, many people believe that it's fundamentally wrong for people of the same sex to marry. Put simply, I think that in 20-30 years' time same-sex marriage will be as much a non-issue as interracial marriage.

However, I'm well aware that there are people on these boards - yourself included - who don't agree, and that's your right. I'm not going to be able to convince you, and nor are you going to be able to convince me. I've given my perspective on the matter, and here's where I'm agreeing to disagree from here on


Wendy

OK, glad to clear that up. There are NO innate differences between the races. And that is where the comparison between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage falls apart.

I honestly don't get your point, Vicki. There are no innate differences between the races (between a black person and a white person, and between a black person and a black berson) - so it's okay for them to marry and intermarry. There are no innate differences between persons of the same gender, so why is that a barrier to marriage?


Wendy

LOL. Not quite.

I am not comparing the sameness of Partner A to Partner B. I am comparing the sameness of Partner A's eligible choices - the sameness of all his/her prospective Partner B's, if you will.

I am claiming that, if a black man can marry a black woman, there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to marry a white woman, because there is no innate difference between a white woman and the black woman. His two choices of marriage partner are equal, or "interchangeable", if you will.

It does not follow, however, that if a man can marry a woman, he should be allowed to marry a man. It would be intellectually dishonest to say, "Marry a woman, marry a man, it's the same thing."

Vicki, I've never read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, although I've certainly heard of the book for years. Your response to Wendy seems to imply that there are a number of differences between the sexes (and presumably those beyond the obvious physical characteristics), so I assume that some of this is delineated in the book. I can also think of certain character traits that are more common in men than women, and vice versa. Do you believe that because of these "differences", that's why so many consider same-sex marriages wrong?

Kathy

Sorry, Vicki, but it seems to me that if I read your theory correctly this is the same old argument that once upon a time was used to prevent interracial marriages.

Yes, there are differences between the sexes. But for myself I see no reason why the fact that these differences exist should prevent gays from marrying the person that they love, if they want to. They don't prevent women marrying men and if your theory holds true then they surely would do. If you propose that those differences in essence mean a barrier to marriage then you cannot pick and choose which genders they are a barrier to. It's either all or nothing, far as I can see.

You might as well say - as those old opponents did - that because a white woman is different to a black woman, interracial marriages are fundamentally wrong.

Would it? For me it comes down very much to the same thing. Two people, who are in love, wish to marry and spend their lives together. It is the simplest of desires and the simplest of acts. It shouldn't be this complicated.

This is often a brutish, depressing world. When I see images on the news of gay couples embracing, kissing, smiling and laughing as they and their family and friends celebrate their union my response is exactly the same as it would be if it was a man and a woman being married. It makes me smile and lifts my heart to see two people so in love and so happy, embarking on a shared life together.

It will forever be a mystery to me why so many wish to stamp out such small moments of joy. They are so few and far between it seems to me we should cherish them wherever we find them rather than trying to discriminate against others simply because they don't fit into the neat stereotype of what forms a 'normal' marriage.

LabRat

To you - and to other opponents of same-sex marriage. Not to supporters of same-sex marriage. This is why I said earlier that you're never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you. There are no "facts" that can appear out of the blue that will make me believe that men should not marry men if they are in love and want to make a commitment to each other in exactly the same way as I made a commitment to my husband over 15 years ago. Likewise, there are no "facts" that I can produce to make you believe that they should. We're coming at this from a fundamentally different personal perspective, with fundamentally different values and beliefs when it comes to same-sex relationships, so I'm not sure what value exists in continuing to throw arguments at each other that will not convince either one of us.


Wendy

Wendy wrote:
Being attracted to someone is not the same as having a sexual relationship with that someone. If a man is attracted to his neighbor's wife, that's one thing, but if they begin a sexual relationship that's something else altogether. If I admire a friend's new guitar, that's one thing, but if I steal it and treat it as my own that's another thing altogether. This is what's known as "anecdotal evidence," not scientific research. It simply isn't valid.

I have also met gay people who have told me the same thing. I have pointed out to them what I just wrote, that being attracted to a person doesn't mean you should have sex with that person.

This is what I meant when I said that the gay lifestyle is a choice. I did not say that we choose the person or persons to whom we are attracted. It isn't the same thing, although after re-reading my post I can understand why you'd draw that conclusion. I simply wasn't clear on what I was trying to say.

If I met you in person, Wendy, I might be attracted to you. (I figure that's more likely that you being attracted to me. I've seen my own picture.) That would not give me the excuse to pursue you and attempt to begin a relationship with you. In other words, my feelings do not create a "right" for me to do what my feelings want me to do. Feelings are not guides, they're indicators of where we are and where we've been. They're not supposed to be directional markers.

Another point which I rarely hear mentioned is that if we redefine marriage as being between two consenting adults irrespective of their physical genders, we are making a fundamental change in an institution which has transcended cultures for millenia. Even cultures which established prostitution in the worship of idols defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Cultures where polygamy or polyandry were either allowed or even encouraged still, for the most part, defined marriage as being between man and woman. Plural wives weren't expected or encouraged to engage in sex between themselves any more than plural husbands were.

My point is that if we are going to change this institution, let's examine why we plan to change it. Is it because of social pressures? If that's the only reason, it's not a sufficient one. Is it for moral reasons? If so, we have to define that moral code and examine its authority. Is it because gays and lesbians are becoming more and more militant and we don't want to start an actual gender war? I sure hope not. That kind of violence would be difficult to stop once it started.

So if you want me to consider same-sex marriage, give me some reasons to do so. I'm not predisposed to agree with your position, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

The problem with the position you've just articulated, Terry, is that you end up leaving gay people with no choice at all. Yes, if you and I, hypothetically speaking, found ourselves attracted to one another we could choose not to act on it - no doubt for very good reasons, as we're both already in a committed relationship with someone else. Society frowns on infidelity and polygamy. So we have other options. In the world-view you describe, the only choice available to a gay person is to remain celibate, to have no committed, loving relationship at all.

Again, it comes down to our own personal beliefs and value-system, and I know that I am not going to convince you and nor are you going to convince me... but I certainly won't condemn someone to a life alone simply because their natural attraction is to someone of their own gender and not the opposite. Because that's the 'choice' you're saying is open to them.


Wendy

I think this quote from Terry Leatherwood
**"Despite the debate over the issue, no one has located a "gay gene" or genetic code to force people to be gay. People who are gay choose to live a gay lifestyle. It is a personal choice.
Whether that choice is right or wrong is a separate but related issue. However, I have yet to see any objective scientific evidence that the gay lifestyle is predetermined within an individual. Therefore it can be debated as a choice, not as something which cannot be altered.** is the reason that we are speaking different languages here.
Being gay is not a choice. Listen again:
Being gay is not a choice.
Who in the hell would *choose* to be reviled, abused, discriminated and dehumanized in the way gay people have been ? I believe that gay people are born the way they are and it is not a choice. They are the children of God, just as I am, and the loving God that I believe in does not make mistakes. If people are gay, they are still my fellow human beings, and entitled to all the same rights under the law as I am.

However there's a huge difference between a sexual relationship and marriage. I've read enough of your fiction, Wendy, to know that you don't feel that two people have to be married to have sex.

I don't believe that there are any laws on the books in California that claim you have to be married to have sex. The marriage argument falls apart when you claim that the choice is marriage or celibacy.

Terry, I'm glad that you clarified because I hated coming down on the other side of the argument with you. It is not my opinion that homosexual attractions are a choice because we as people, for the most part, don't choose our feelings. But we do choose what feelings we want to feed, and we also choose our actions.

I chose celibacy for 22 years, and I can tell you that it isn't painful. I can also say that monogamy can be quite fun and exciting. But the truth is that arguments about celibacy and monogamy are all beside the point since the law doesn't address them. It addresses marriage.


Elisabeth
Edit to address Joy's statements which were posting at the same time as mine: Be very careful. Up until now this discussion has been very respectful. You, at least, owe him the decency of reading fully what he said before cursing at him. He clarified to differentiate between having homosexual urges which cannot be controlled and living a homosexual lifestyle which can.

Elisabeth, you're right, you don't have to be married to have sex. But as has been mentioned earlier, many people choose to be married as a public and legal affirmation of their love and commitment to each other. You and James chose that; my husband and I did, millions of other people have chosen that. Yet the law states that two men - or two women - who may love each other more deeply than many of these millions of others, state that they cannot, simply because of their gender. I personally find that unfair.

And perhaps I have misinterpreted, but I didn't take Joy's comments as cursing at Terry, but just strongly expressing her disbelief that all homosexuals would deliberately choose to live that lifestyle - and its history of abuse from other members of society - if they didn't have to.

Kathy

Did you read what I said? I did NOT curse at him. I will rephrase to say "who the heck" in case anyone's feelings are bruised by the word "hell". But I stand by the rest of my statement

Sorry, you lost me here.

I will try again to explain my point. Here is another example:

Opponents to child-marriages claim that an adult man can marry an adult woman, but he can not marry a 5-year-old girl. They say this because they recognize a fundamental difference between an adult woman (an acceptable spouse for the man) and a 5-year-old child (an unacceptable spouse for the man). The objection to the marriage is valid.

Opponents to interracial marriages claimed that a white man could marry a white woman, but he could not marry a black woman. However, both Wendy and I have established that there are no innate differences between the races. Therefore, there is no reason to assume the white woman to be a suitable spouse for the white man, but the black woman to be an unsuitable spouse. The objection to the marriage is baseless.

Finally, opponents to same-sex marriage say that a man may marry a woman but he may not marry a man. They say this because they recognize fundamental differences between a woman (a suitable spouse for a man) and a man (an unsuitable spouse for a man).

My point is not so much to prove that men should not be allowed to marry men. I don't think they should, but as of yet, I have not offered any reasons, proofs, or evidence. I have simply made the claim that a woman is fundamentally different from a man, thus opening the door for the possibility that, although a woman is a suitable spouse for a man, that does not necessarily mean that a man will be an equally suitable spouse for a man.

And, excuse me, but people want to stamp out gay couples's moments of joy? People are trying to discriminate based on their neat little stereotypes of what forms a 'normal' marriage? <takes deep breath> You are mistaken. Supporters of traditional marriage do not want to snuff out anyone's joy, love or happiness.

If the law defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then that is the definition of a marriage. It is not a "neat little stereotype", it is simply the legal definition of the institution of marriage. We happen to believe that society has sound reasons for defining marriage in this way, and we want to maintain that definition.

Elisabeth, just to clarify: when I posited a choice with celibacy as one option, I wasn't offering it as the only alternative to marriage, but to what Terry was suggesting: that people attracted to each other have a choice of whether to act on that attraction or not. The alternative to celibacy in my argument there isn't marriage; it's a relationship with someone else. So, for example, say I'm attracted to Bob and Bill at the same time. Bill is married, so for reasons of... well, common decency as well as common sense I decide to ask Bob out. In other words, I have an alternative which means I can still have a loving relationship.

Using Terry's argument that a gay person can choose not to act on attraction, then if I'm attracted to Barb I can choose not to act on it - but if I'm also not attracted to Bob or Bill or anyone else of the opposite gender ever then I'm left alone, when I might really, really want to share my life with someone. It's simplistic, of course, but that was my point - not that I was ruling out sex outside marriage. Does that make sense?

And Kathy has answered the point about why people in same-sex relationships may want to be married exactly as, if not much better than, I would have.


Wendy

I found this interesting.

A Libertarian Case Against Same-Sex Marriage, by Wayne Lusvardi

Anyone interested can read the entire article

Here is an excerpt:

The word “marriage” comes from the Latin word “mater” for mother. And “mater” is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. Marriage is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status in a traditional society.

Civil libertarian and feminist philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote "over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign." A social order that doesn’t protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can’t give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health. Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society. Women’s freedom to control access to their body is what marriage is all about. Without that there is no legitimate societal basis for laws to protect marriage, including gay marriage.

Feminists are essentially right about marriage but not same-sex marriage. Defining marriage down to a mere contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless. Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine. Same sex marriage is anti-feminist.

Modern society has no legal basis to sanction same-sex marriage because there is no procreation, no need for protection and safety and no need to preserve freedom and choice for women.

Small nitpick, Elisabeth.

I take this to mean that you were 22 years old when you married. That means that you were a child, physically not ready for sex, for about half the time you were celibate, or maybe even more than half that time.

Recently I heard a radio documentary about sexual harassment of women in Egypt. According to this documentary, women in Egypt are routinely grabbed and fondled when they move around in crowded places. Wearing a veil is no protection. In the documentary a young woman was interviewed. When she was on her way to work, a man had grabbed her, pushed her against a wall and started to tear off her clothes. Unusually for an Egyptian woman she had yelled and screamed for help, and people had come by and pushed off the attacker. Now the woman had brought the case to court, asking the court to punish the man for attempted rape. The case had caused a lot of outrage in Egypt, but most of the fury was directed at the woman. How could she make so much trouble for a man who didn't get to rape her in the first place?

According to this documentary, there is widespread and rampant sexual frustration among young men in Egypt. The reason is that a married man is supposed to support his family, but since unemployment is sky-high in Egypt, most young Egyptian men can't afford to marry. They also can't have extramarital affairs, since unmarried women are guarded so closely. So most Egyptian men can't marry and thus can't have sex until they are well into their thirties, and this unwanted celibacy causes the frustration that makes men in Egypt constantly harass women.

I think celibacy is a thing that agrees with some people but not with others. I definitely think that there are many homosexual people who can choose to be celibate and be at peace with themselves that way. But I don't think all gay people can do that.

Ann

That's just taking us back to where this thread started from, Vicki, and we've already seen that many people simply don't agree that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. The author is basing his argument on a premise that really, in this day and age, is not broadly accepted. It's certainly not - again - relying on anything but opinion and value-judgements, so it doesn't get us any further forward.

Apart from that, the argument has some logical flaws. Even in heterosexual marriages the couple may choose not to have children. Does that mean they have no right to get/remain married? What if one or both is infertile? Should their marriage be dissolved?

And that's before I refer back to points made at the start of this thread about children living in very unhealthy family situations, children in single-parent families, abused children and so on... and children adopted or born into same-sex relationships.

This:
just leaves me boggled.


Wendy

Okay, I have lots to say on this subject, but I've been "meaning to write a response" for days now and so now I'm deciding that trying to get it all out in one post isn't going to happen.

So I just quickly wanted to address one point Wendy made (and I'm sure I'll come back later with more to say):
I agree that the USE of the institution is not always procreation, and that many couples choose not to have children or are unable to have children. But that current use of a tool doesn't dictate what the tool was created to do. Marriage didn't start as a "commitment" tool, or as a "let's have sex" tool - the societal context for marriage was for the family unit in the sense of children.

That in no way means everyone uses it that way now, or that people must use it that way now. However, if we're going to argue for a change in the definition of what the tool is "designed" for, then we have to look at the original design, the proposed design, and why we're making the change. Not just say that a current use is parallel to another currently desired use and therefore must be within the definition.

Bethy

Hi Wendy,

I thought your response was interesting.

This man's arguments are not my arguments. I only just happened to stumble upon this yesterday (actually, someone emailed the link to me), and I thought, "What an interesting point of view." I can't say I exactly agree with him on everything, and I wish he had explained some things in more detail so I could see exactly why he believed what he did, but it still seemed interesting to me, especially coming from a Libertarian point-of-view.

To me, what labels and definitions people use about themselves ultimately mean nothing. People stick labels on themselves for all kinds of reasons. If, for example, you want to put forth an anti-libertarian view, you can hope that people will take you more seriously if you claim to be a libertarian yourself.

In Sweden there are a few ultra-conservative women who claim to be feminists. For example, one of them insists that all women ought to be stay-at-home wives and mothers, and she claims that this is a feminist view. How so? Well, she insists that God created all women to be full time wives and mothers, and that is why all women ought to turn their backs on society and remain safely locked up behind the doors of domesticity.

Please note that I, who call myself a feminist, don't insist on the opposite view. In other words, I would never say that all women have to have careers, or that it is wrong to be a fulltime wife and mother. What I insist on is that not all women are the same, and not all women would be happy devoting all their time to their families, and quite a few women might want have a job because of the financial benefits it gives them. For that reason, I find it extremely antifeminist to insist that all women should be housewives. And I believe that those who call themselves feminists while advocating such views do so because they want to make their (rather extreme) opinions more respectable.

In the same way, I personally don't regard the person you quoted as a libertarian at all, Vicki. I think the views that he put forth are incompatible with libertarianism.

Ann

Ann,

I agree with you that this view is not what I would have expected from a Libertarian. I wouldn't go so far as to make the blanket statement that the man cannot possibly be a "real" Libertarian, based exclusively on his views on same-sex marriage. I will agree with you, though, that his views on this subject probably differ from the majority of Libertarians.

I still found them interesting.

I generally stay out of political discussions on the boards (and in real life), but I find this topic interesting since I just wrote a paper on it. I think what is really at the heart of this matter is the definition of what a marriage is. Getting back to the basics and leaving out the whole man/woman aspect for a few minutes and just focusing on two people: why do they want to get married?

For some, marriage is a religious sacrament. A ceremony performed in the eyes of God by a clergy member, with significance to the couple and their religion. I am not an expert on religions—I only know much about Christianity—but I’m sure that many various religions have their own close associations with marriage ceremonies. My mother always described her marriage as a commitment between herself, her husband, and God. However, not everyone chooses to be married for religious reasons.

I think people often confuse the religious wedding and the legal wedding. They are two separate entities, although they often take place in one service. The ceremony is generally based in religion. But the paper that you sign is what makes it legal. I don’t think the two have to go hand-in-hand. There can be religious unions, legal unions, or combinations of the both. My husband and I are not religious. I don’t think that our lack of religious beliefs makes our marriage any less valid. Our union is a legal one, and it works for us. I’d hate to have been told that the government would prohibit us from marrying because of our faith (or lack thereof). The United States has a policy of separation of church and state. So although a church may not recognize our marriage, the federal government does, and that is what is important to us.

Some say that marriage exists so that people can have children. Is this true in some cases? I would say probably so. Is it true in every case? Certainly not. My husband and I do not plan to have children. I know people who have children and are not married. I also know couples who got married because they were pregnant, which is a completely different argument—I’m not confusing a shotgun wedding with the arguments made earlier in this thread. Perhaps in the past (and I’m certainly no history major) marriage was a means to create a family. But society does evolve—it has done so for thousands of years. I’d say in this day and time that it is less necessary to have marriage in order to have children. The social stigma of the unwed mother or illegitimate child has greatly diminished. Do some people get married to start a family? Yes. But do they all? No.

Another reason I have heard as to why people get married is monogamy. I absolutely wholeheartedly agree that marriages are meant to be monogamous, although the statistics I have seen for both men and women who commit adultery are frightening. And marriage doesn’t actually guarantee anything—if a spouse cheats, they won’t face legal repercussions (although perhaps religious ones, depending on their faith). However, I don’t think marriage is necessary in order to have a monogamous relationship. I dated my husband for years before we decided to get married, four of those in which we lived together. We had a committed, loving, monogamous relationship the entire time.

So if my husband and I were already in a committed and monogamous relationship, we don’t want to have children, and we’re not religious, why did we get married?

First, we wanted to celebrate our love with our family and friends. Our wedding service, although beautiful to me, was short and simple. It was a means for us to make our union legal. And that was the biggest point of it all—legal rights.

We have a partnership. I trust him. And I love him so much that I want to be sure that he is as well taken care of should anything happen to me. If I were to get into a car wreck on the way home from work today and sent to the hospital, he would have rights regarding being able to see me, discussing and making decisions on my treatment, enforcing my living will, and should anything happen to me, the right to my life insurance. Those are just a small sample of the legal rights he got just from signing a single sheet of paper and saying “I do” that he didn’t have previously.

What it boils down to is that I think the definition of marriage is really rather subjective. Different people have different reasons for marrying. For example, my friends that I mentioned above who got married because they were pregnant—do I think they should have gotten married for that reason? No, I don’t. But they were allowed to do so freely without my interference because it is their life, not mine. We didn’t agree on that issue, and that is what makes us individuals—we’re not all the same, we don’t all do the same things for the same reasons.

Will I ever want to marry a woman? Most likely not, because I’m heterosexual and already married. But I don’t see the harm in allowing two women (or two men) to get married. It is their life and their agenda, not mine. We may not necessarily hold the same beliefs and values systems, but it is okay with me for us to be different. I think they should be allowed to do whatever they wish regardless of how I feel about it, as long as they don’t harm anyone else in the process.

What I’d really like to know, is why so many people are opposed to legalizing gay marriage. If it would not personally affect you in any way if a homosexual couple got married, why oppose it? I am genuinely curious here.

(And yes, in case you couldn't tell, I am a Libertarian )

I think I'm now shutting up in this discussion because Rona expressed exactly how I feel about marriage, and far more articulately - especially with the distinction between the religious and the governmental regulation of marriage. In fact, in some countries there is a complete separation of these aspects of marriage: you have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious ceremony it's up to you. So the signing of official documents to say that you're married, the production of the marriage certificate etc, is all done separately from the religious ceremony.

And yes. What Rona said is my position exactly - and I'm not a libertarian, so it's not exclusively a libertarian stance


Wendy

Rona wrote:
Rona, the Federal government neither recognizes marriages nor authorizes them. This is a state issue. The only Federal statue involved says that any legal and binding contract (including marriage) which is recognized in one state must be recognized by all other states unless there is a clear and overriding reason not to do so. So your marriage was performed/finalized/recognized/recorded in whatever state where you and your husband got your license. The other states simply recognized what has already happened. I know, this is nitpicking, but it does matter; otherwise you would have to repeat your marriage in every state where you wished to represent yourself as a married couple.

In fact, Wendy, marriage in the US is purely secular from a legal standpoint. Two people are married when they register their completed license with their county (or equivalent) legal authority. A religious ceremony or lack thereof has no bearing on the legal (or secular) recognition of the marriage. The normal procedure is for the minister to fill out the marriage certificate before or after a religious ceremony, but a justice of the peace or a state or local judge can fill that role as well.

Rona also wrote:
This is not true. If you define marriage as being between one man and one woman, your neighbor across the street defines it as between any two consenting adults, and the group down the street defines it as one man with as many wives as he can stuff into his three-bedroom suburban tract home, who's right?

This is why we have to have a legal definition of marriage. One can no more define marriage subjectively than one can set the speed limit in a school zone subjectively. Irrespective of your opinion of homosexuality (and irrespective of mine), marriage must have a legal definition. Since it is within the purview of the separate states to issue marriage licenses, it is up to the separate states to define marriage within their sovereign borders.

I really loved your post, Rona! I truly appreciated all of your thoughts.

Well that's why I love the voting system. Consciously, I just can't vote 'yes' to something I don't believe in, but if the majority ever votes 'yes' for gay marriage, that's fine by me. And you're so right--it doesn't personally affect me, and I'm tempted to say I wouldn't even vote at all if I ever lived in a state where such a proposition came up. I just can't vote yes because of my Roman Catholic beliefs, but I'm not sure I could vote no, and push my religion on everyone else. I totally get it--both of my relative's brothers are gay and have wonderful significant others. Christmas isn't the same without them!--but at the end of the day, I'm not a buffet Catholic. I won't pick and choose when to stand by church doctrine, so I'd rather leave it up to the voters who don't have a religious stake in it.

I'm tempted to say same-sex unions will have their day...for a lot of voters who don't have the Crisis of Catholic Conscience like I do, (say that five times fast *g*), it's kind of like Wendy, said, there are some things that take longer than others to get used to. We may not all agree on everything, but we can become more accepting society, and I think we'll just have to keep watch and see how we can come together on this issue to make everyone happy.

JD

You're right, Terry, but I think the point that Wendy was trying to make was that in some countries of the world a religious ceremony is not enough. I think France is one, maybe other European countries as well. You must have a civil ceremony for your marriage to be recognized as valid; you can choose to have or not have a religious ceremony in addition to that.

But in Canada, and I believe in all of the US, if you have a religious ceremony and have the proper documents signed, you don't need to have a SEPARATE civil ceremony to make it legal.

And let me just say that I really liked Rona's post too - thank you for making it - and I also felt that it expressed my own personal point of view very well.

Kathy

Hey, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Our wedding was a blast (albeit a very expensive one).

And try telling the IRS that the federal government doesn't recognize my marriage when I file my taxes Or tell my mother that--she receives survivors benefits from the SSA that she wouldn't be getting if she'd not been legally married to my father.

I feel like your logic is a little circular here, Terry. Can you clarify so I can better understand? You say that the definition of marriage is not subjective, and then follow it with examples of three different viewpoints on what different people believe marriage is. If that's not subjective, what is?

But what I disagree with on your post, Terry, is really where you ask which definition is right. Why does there have to be a right and a wrong? Why is it so important to set a legal definition? That's the part of the whole same-sex marriage debate that confounds me. What is right for me may not be right for you and vice versa. I appreciate that you have a different viewpoint than me, and I respect it as long as I'm not forced to take the same viewpoint. I can agree to disagree. I guess the same principle applies to my views on same-sex marriages. I don't believe that any one individual, or even a collective of individuals, should impose what they think is right or wrong on someone else. If same sex-marriages are legalized, nobody will force you to get one. You simply have the choice.

JD - Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I can appreciate your position.

Thank you for your post, Rona! I, too, thought it was beautiful. And thank you, Jen, too.

Ann

Vicki said:
From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be one set viewpoint on the subject of same-sex marriage. This seems to be a subject that has us (I'm a registered Libertarian) split pretty evenly.

Here is one Libertarian arguing against same sex marriage. Here is another one arguing for it.

Tara

Rona,

Marriage is an institution. Wikipedia defines an institution as:

Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service. As structures and mechanisms of social order among humans, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, including sociology, political science and economics. Institutions are a central concern for law, the formal regime for political rule-making and enforcement.

As an institution, marriage has what wikipedia calls "a social purpose which transcends individual lives and intentions". It is a mechanism of social order.

I know this sounds awfully cold and unfeeling. But cultural anthropologists study just such things. What are the values of a particular society? What are the rules? What are the institutions? How does the society govern or influence the behavior of its members? etc.

As wikipedia explains, the term institution is applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society. Society uses institutions to promote social behavior deemed beneficial to the society as a whole. Our society (and, in fact, practially every society known to man) has determined that it is beneficial to the society as a whole to promote marriage as a permenant union between members of the opposite sex, for the purpose of forming a family unity and raising children.

What if you don't like that definition of marriage? Does the existance of childless couples, for example, prove that marriage has nothing to do with procreation? Well, go back and look at the part of the definition which says, "As structures and mechanisms of social order among humans, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, including sociology, political science and economics." It's not a matter of each person defining marriage as they will. As an social institution, marriage can be studied objectively, to determing what behaviors society is attempting to govern, what rules society is using to promote those behaviors, and what benefits society is gaining from the enforcement of said behaviors. You can even determine at what cost, such as at the cost of not allowing every single member of the society the ability to marry whomever they please. Which takes me back to the 4 restrictions to marriage in our society: you cannot marry (1) a minor, (2) a close relative, (3) a person who is already legal married, and (4) a person of the same sex.

So, what about divorce, single parents, and childless couples? Our society allows all three, but we do not promote them. We tell children, "One day, when you grow up and get married,...", "One day, when you are a daddy,...", "One day, when you have your own family..." We don't say, "When you grow up and get divorced..." Because what our society wants to promote is its members joining in permanent union with a member of the opposite sex, for the purpose of creating a family unit and raising children.

If our society changes the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages, we will not be merely "accepting" same-sex unions, we will be promoting them. And institutions are very powerful forces for influencing behavior in a society.

Well, many societies already have changed their definition of marriage in this way - including the country I live in. I'm not sure what you're specifically getting at when you reference institutions influencing behaviour, Vicki, though one possible influence I can think of is to increase the incidence of marriage as opposed to what is still known in some circles as 'living in sin', which surely should be a good thing?


Wendy

Wendy,

Yes, I am aware that some countries have changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage.

Specifically, I was referring to the fact that in those countries, the society no longer has an institution which promotes a specific behavior (unite with a member of the opposite sex in order to create a family unit and raise children). Yes, there is still marriage, and yes, women and men can still marry and procreate. But the society is not *specifically promoting* that behavior anymore. The behavior society is promoting is something along the lines of "Find someone you love to live with".

As far as "living in sin", it is not clear what the effect will be. Some preliminary reports indicate the incidence of co-habitation actually increases in those countries which have allowed same-sex marriage, although the numbers are not conclusive.

Of course, if you take that phrase in its literal sense, same-sex couples are living in God-defined (or "religion-defined", if that's the way you look at it) sin regardless of their marital status, but I'm assuming that's not what you meant.

Yes, and this is where we come back to divergent values and the issue on which you and I will never agree, because I find absolutely nothing wrong with your final sentence. Indeed, I find it welcoming, inclusive and treating all law-abiding members of society on equal terms, and that's the kind of society I like to live in.

I'm not saying that I believe you're wrong to think otherwise; I'm just reiterating my earlier point that we're never going to convince each other here.


Wendy

Vicki, I think I see what your argument is, but I’m not completely clear on it, so please feel free to correct me if I’ve got it wrong. You believe that marriage is vital to the function of society, correct? Nobody is proposing abolishing marriage (at least nobody here is, although I know there are people out there who think it is an archaic institution that should be abolished).

Your main point to me seems to be:

I’m sorry, that is just where I can’t agree with you at all. My husband and I are not raising children, nor do we ever plan to. That is not the purpose of our marriage. Perhaps in the past that may have been what marriage was all about, but not anymore. At least, not to everyone. You stated that cultural anthropologists have studied marriage in past societies. Why would they need to study that if the role of marriage always been the same over all the years of history? The answer is that it hasn’t. The role of marriage in society has changed over thousands of years. Right now, you are witnessing a change in that role. And I’d feel pretty safe making a bet that it will continue to change long after I’m dead and gone.

You also said:

But then you said:

I’m sorry, but I find those two statements to be very contradictory. We allow divorce, but we are not promoting it. We allow single parents, but we are not promoting them. We allow childless couples, but we are not promoting childlessness. But if we allow a same-sex marriage, we would be promoting it? I just don’t understand how you’re making that connection.


I completely beg to differ with you. This may be what you have seen and heard in your life, but it is not what I have seen and heard in mine. Once again, we are all different people with different origins, beliefs, backgrounds, values, etc. When I was growing up, what I was told was not “One day, when you grow up and get married…” As far back as I can remember, what was told me was, “You realize that it is okay not to marry. You don’t ever have to get married.” But I got married anyway, despite what I was told all of my life. Because it was my choice.

As far as promoting divorce? I know plenty of people who have that planned in to their lives, sad as it sounds. I think society already promotes divorce as an easy out. It has become ingrained in the culture of my generation. I’ve heard numerous times, “You can marry that guy, and if it doesn’t work out, you can always get a divorce.” I’m hard pressed to talk to many people and not hear the words, “My first marriage…” or “My second marriage…” come out of their mouths.

Which takes me back to my argument. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. (1) and (2) would cause harm to someone else. (3) would be irrelevant, because if you’re married to more than one person at the same time, you’re not married by definition (if the definition is defined to mean between one man and one woman, or any two consenting individuals—otherwise, we’ll just cross that bridge when we get to it). (4) does not cause harm to anyone else. Therefore, I just don’t see what’s wrong with it.

Wendy,

I had to stop in the middle of my reply in order to leave the house this morning, and so I did not completely answer your question.

You asked if an increase in marriage as opposed to so-called "living in sin" would not be considered a good thing. My answer is, "No, not particularly." The fact that a couple gets a marriage license and makes it "official" does not, in and of itself, benefit the society in any particular way. The purpose of the marriage is not the signing of the license, and the benefit that society obtains from promoting marriage does not come from the fact that the couples are now "legal". The only reason co-habilitation is frown upon is that society is attempting to promote a permanent union between members of the opposite sex for the purpose of forming a family unit in which to raise children.

Rona,

The reason I pointed out that sociologists study marriage was not so much that they studied marriage in past societies, but that they can, and do, study marriage in current societies. And, although various aspects of marriage do change over time, or from society to society, studies of both past and current society show that marriage has always had one unchanging basic purpose: to promote unions between members of the opposite sex for the purpose of forming stable family units in which to raise children.

I have already explained that childless couples are accepted in our society. In times past, there was, indeed, a social stigma attached to being childless. But such is no longer the case and, expecially with the advent of birth control, it is considered a personal choice. That does not change the fact that the institution of marriage exists in our society to promote the behavior of entering into a permanent union with a member of the opposite sex with the purpose of forming a family unit in which to raise children.

I think it is important to note that an institution encourages the members of a society to engage in behaviors beneficial to society as a whole, but it does not force them to do so. Each individual is free to decide whether to get married or not, whether to have children or not. Yet, the society as a whole would quickly die out if everyone decided not to have children. So, for the purpose of its own perpetuation, the society promotes the general idea of growing up and having children.

Society sees other benefits in promoting marriage, such as encouraging members of society to mature, to take on responsibilities, to sacrifice, to participate in the raising and training of the next generation, etc. A definition of "find someone to love" does not *necessarily* encourage the same maturation process. (Not to say all unmarried individuals are immature, selfish jerks and all married people are wise, responsible and mature! I am merely addressing the idea that the current definition of marriage promotes a certain process of maturation.)

Finally, the reason I distinguish between "accepting" a behavior and "promoting" said behavior comes from the force behind a social institution. The institution is, as I said, a mechanism used by society to influence the behavior of the members of the society. In comparison, our society accepts single parents, but we do not have a specific social institution which promotes this behavior as being beneficial to society.

If we change the definition of marrige, same-sex unions will be institutionalize. We will have a social institution which promotes this type of union. The problem is that this type of union is not, in and of itself, of any particular benefit to society. So, marriage itself will no longer be of any particular benefit to society.

Edited: Just to clarify, Wendy argues that the very process of allowing the union is beneficial in that she claims it creates a welcoming, inclusive society. But I am not talking about the supposed benefits associated with process of allowing the union, rather the fact that the union itself (as wonderful as it may be for the individuals) does not result in any particular benefit to society as a whole.

I may drawing a fine line here, but I'll try to draw it anyway. :p Family may have been the end result, but for centuries, the primary purpose of getting married was very economically slanted. I'd have to finish reading a few articles before making an in-depth argument (which, honestly won't happen because work trumps debates *and* I need to find a new job), but there's this great article by Gillian Clark entitled "Roman Women" in the journal Greece & Rome, and it looks at women's rights (which were nothing of course) and how families benefited economically by marrying off their daughters ASAP. Sure, these girls started families; it would have been humiliating to be barren. But they didn't get married to start a family; they got married because it's one less mouth to feed at home.

My small point here is that I personally think Rona is right when she says family hasn't always been the sole purpose of marriage. It's the purpose I personally prefer, but we've had 2000+ years of other things dominate the marriage factor, and truthfully, all this being in love stuff is a much more recent development across the board. So of course it's going to come with new challenges, like who exactly we're going to let get married.

Just my two cents.
JD

I was thinking today about that second Libertarian commentator Tara linked to, and I came to the conclusion that this entire issue would be so much easier on everyone if our society as a whole adopted his approach (or part of it) to marriage. Separate religious and secular marriage, to the point that the marriage licence cannot be signed in a church. Have marriage, as a legal institution conferring rights and responsibilities on a couple, be a purely civil contract, just like buying a house or obtaining citizenship.

Then after the civil ceremony, for those who want it, they can celebrate or consecrate their marriage in a church. Churches can - as they already do - set their own rules as to who may get married under their procedures. It's already the case that people may marry according to secular law who may not be married in church - for example, some, if not all, religions have restrictions on the remarriage of divorced persons. So if churches choose not to allow same-sex marriages, that's their right under their rules, but it wouldn't affect anyone's legal rights, such as rights to property, pensions, next-of-kin rights and so on.

Me? I'd be all for it.


Wendy

I had mentioned this as a possible solution in an earlier post, but Wendy has made the point much clearer than I did. 52% of voters in Califoria have voted to eliminate the right of same sex partners to get married. I wonder how people would feel about eliminating their own "marriage" and calling it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead. Legally sanctioning all unions as domestic partnerships would preserve marriage as a religious ceremony, and it seems that should suffice for opponents of same-sex marriage.

I also wonder how those opponents view religions who allow same sex marriage. For example, the Unitarian Church was active in the fight against Prop 8. The Southern California division of the United Methodist Church went against the wishes of the rest of their church divisions and performed gay weddings. Are those religions "wrong" because of their tolerance?

JD,

The financial aspect is one of the aspects I was talking about which has changed over time. I didn't say that the union of members of the opposite sex to create a family unit in which to raise children was the *sole* aspect of marriage, I said it was the one basic aspect which has never changed.

Also, regarding society benefiting from people forming the family unit and raising their children in it - It really isn't so much that society created marriage in order to get people to reproduce. People are going to reproduce no matter what. So, society isn't so much saying, "Get married in order to have children", but more like, "Since it is a given that children *are* going to be born in this society, we need a societal structure which will provide a safe and stable environment in which to raise them."

Marriage is also a legal contract, which clearly defines the specifical legal responsibilities and obligations of both sides. It is a way of protecting the rights of the children (for example, parents are legally responsible for feeding, clothing, and caring for their children), as well as the rights of the parents.

One of the saddest consequences of the welfare system which was in place in the US for many years, was that it discouraged marriage. The idea was that, if a woman had a man to provide for her, she didn't need welfare. Social servies would actually conduct inspections of the homes of welfare recipients, looking for signs that a man had been living there. Any indication that the woman had a husband, or even a boy friend, and the money was taken away. Of course, although the idea was that a woman with a man should eschew welfare, the reality was that many women took the welfare and eschewed the men. The consequences were devastating.

What does that have to do with same-sex marriage? I made my point at the bottom of my post to Rona. If we change the institution of marriage so that we are promoting the general idea that people should find someone to love and share their life with, then the institution of marriage ends up promoting something wonderful for the individual but of no particular benefit to the society. Marriage, as a societal institution, becomes meaningless. As we are starting to see in countries which have already changed the definition of marriage, when you make marriage meaningless, fewer people bother to get married. And I believe that will have serious consequences on society.

Making marriage a purely civil contract and then allowing churches to consecrate marriages according to their own rules is a great idea, I think. There should be laws pertaining to all forbidding child marriage and marriage between close relatives, and personally I shy away from the idea of polygamy. I just can't stand it. Interestingly, I have to admit that it is possible that my objection to polygamy may be slightly similar to the objections to same-sex marriage. I shudder to think that society would allow people to marry polygamously. The whole idea is just plain wrong, disgusting and horribly sexist to me (because, in 999,999 cases out 1,000,000, a polygamous marriage involves one man and more than one woman). I hate it. I guess, though, that you can argue against same-sex marriage for slightly similar reasons that you can argue against polygamy - because it upsets the balance between the sexes, and to a certain extent, it upsets the 'parental balance' between the father and the mother of a child.

I can see that these are emotional issues. Let me make a confession. Because I don't see same-sex marriage as sexist - since homosexual men and homosexual women would have the same chance to enter into homosexual marriages - I'm not offended by same-sex marriage, but I am offended by polygamy.



One husband, six wives and thirty-two children?

Ann

P.S. I have seen a documentary about this particular family. At the time when the documentary was made, they had twenty-nine children, not thirty-two. But there had been one more child, who had, however, been killed in a fire. The mother of that child talked about the death of her son or daughter with tears in her eyes. But the father, who had twenty-nine surviving children anyway, shrugged it off as an unfortunate accident, nothing more. And I thought to myself, well, if you have fathered twenty-nine children by six different wives, several of whom are still fertile, why should you care about losing one child?

Groobie,

I feel like this is an argument which keeps going around in circle. I have given 4 restrictions to marriage. You cannot marry (1) a minor, (2) a close relative, (3) a person who is already legally married, and (4) a person of the same sex.

I ask, Why do you agree with the first three restrictions?

The answer I get back is, "Because there are valid reasons for those restrictions."

OK, I say, there are valid reasons for restriction 4, also. And, I procede to enumerate the reasons.

To which, I am asked, But what about their rights? What about their happiness?

Well, what about the rights of the sister to love her brother? What about *their* happiness?

Oh, but there are reasons why a sister shouldn't marry her brother.

OK, there are reasons a man shouldn't marry a man.

But what about their rights? What about their happiness? Don't you *want* them to be happy? Why are you so intolerant?

And round and round we go.

All I can say is, people do not oppose same-sex marriage because they are intolerant or because they want to stomp out gay people's joy. They oppose same-sex marriage because they believe there are valid reasons for doing so. As long as you keep asking why we are intolerant or why we don't want gays to have the same rights to happiness that we enjoy ourselves, you are asking the wrong question.

This is Sweden's most famous gay couple, Jonas Gardell and Mark Levengood:



Gardell and Levengood have been together 'forever'. As soon as it became possible to register their partnership as a civil union, they did so, in the early nineties. But by then they had been an official couple for about ten years.

In 2003, Jonas Gardell became a father. He and Mark Levengood knew a lesbian couple, and the four of them had long discussed the possibility of having children. Gardell provided one of the women with his sperm, and that way the woman became pregnant. Their little son spends most of his time with his mother and her partner, but Gardell and Levengood visit all the time.

Then in 2006, Mark Levengood had a daughter with the other woman, Jonas Gardell's son's mother's partner. (I know, it is a mouthful...)

Anyway, I think Gardell and Levengood are more loving fathers than the polygamous man pictured in my previous post, the one who couldn't be too upset that one of his children had died.

Ann

One of my co-workers and I have been debating the issue for a month. We have a good relationship and know that we have no chance of changing each other's minds, but we appreciate intellectual debate. I also appreciate that those of you who support bans on gay marriage are willing to engage in debate here, even though you must feel like you're on the defensive.

My question is not one about tolerance. It seems to me that fundamentally this is a religious issue. Many supporters of same-sex marriage bans do so out of a moral or religious conviction. However, others (including supporters of same-sex marriages) do not hold those same religious convictions or have different interpretations of those convictions. So the questions that I asked were about religious beliefs.

Our country was founded by people who were being persecuted for their beliefs. We have established a seperation of church and state in order to protect people from the abuses that minority religious groups suffered at the hands of other forms of government. For me, it seems that our government is failing to protect a minority group because of their beliefs. If there is an alternative (such as labelling all marriages "domestic partnerships" and confering equal legal rights), why can't we take the religious meaning out of the state sanctioned ceremony?

Vicki, I'm guessing that Groobie (and others) agree that there are valid reasons for the first three restrictions on marriage because (the first two, at least, of) these reasons can be grounded in some sort of objective fact, or laws existing elsewhere in society for people's protection.

Minors under a certain age should not be allowed to marry because society generally agrees, supported by educational and developmental psychology, that minors are not mentally and cognately capable of making those kind of decisions. Minors are also not allowed to vote, join the armed forces or make their own decisions on medical treatment, among other things. These restrictions are not applied to same-sex couples or gay people generally.

Siblings and close relatives are not allowed to marry not only because of a societal taboo, but for genetic reasons: we know that 'in-breeding' leads to a greater incidence of birth defects and genetic weaknesses being introduced into families.

As for someone who is already married, that's probably the weakest of the three, in that there aren't scientific, objective or legal reasons for this beyond that 'society believes that it's objectionable'. I don't believe that our society as a whole is ready to consider breaching that taboo at present, if it ever well. I do believe that society is ready, or close to being ready, to agree that same-sex marriage is not the taboo that it used to be.

Finally:
I can't even argue with this, Vicki, as I don't think I even understand the basis on which you're arguing. How does marriage have benefit to society now? How does changing it to allow a contract between two people of the same sex as well as two people of the opposite sex make any difference to whether marriage is of benefit to society or not?

I'm also not remotely convinced that the decline in marriage has anything to do with same-sex marriage. Marriage has been in decline in the Western world for the past thirty or so years. Many couples opt to live together rather than get married - either as a revolt against what they consider to be an outdated tradition, or because they can't be bothered with all the paperwork and/or they don't really think of their relationship as permanent. You'd have to show statistics demonstrating a consistent, ongoing decline in heterosexual marriage since the legalisation of same-sex marriage in countries such as Norway, Canada and others to support that particular argument.


Wendy

Well that all sounds well and good to me. I'm all for protecting kids! But it sounds like we're back to the beginning because it asks the question, What about same-sex partners who adopt? Are they not allowed the same rights to keep their kids safe as other couples who adopt? And quite frankly, when I think about unions in terms of the kids, that makes me much more likely to want to find a solution that gives same-sex unions more legal rights, and I can still keep my sacrament of marriage in the church its own party.

Peace
JD

ETA: I'm going to be out of pocket for the next month, so I'll probably just be checking for story updates. It's been a lovely discussion, all!

Hypothetically then, if an incestuous couple had no plans to have children (or perhaps were homosexual), the only barrier in their relationship would be the societal taboo. Correct? And society can and does change...

I'm not trying to discredit your argument, I'm just curious to see what you'll say. I think it's been established here that biological children are not needed to validate a marriage.

The funny thing is, none of the first three restrictions (against minors, close relatives, and persons already legally married) are universal. We have no problem accepting these restrictions as valid, even though, throughout history and around the world there have been (and still are) societies which allow one, two, or all three of these types of marriages.

One the other hand, opposition to same-sex marriage is universal. And it is not simply a matter of a societal taboo against homosexuality. Read the history of homosexuality. Homosexual behavior was accepted in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. It was accepted in parts of Africa. It was accepted in ancient China. Spanish conquistadors were astonished to find homosexual behavior among the native Indians of the Americas. AND YET, these same societies consistently defined marriage as a union between male & female.

Yet proponents of same-sex marriage insist on stating categorically that this is the one restriction for which there is no valid reason. No amount of arguing will convince you otherwise. So, I have to ask you, why do you believe those societies which allowed (and even encouraged) homosexual behavior still insisted on marriage being a union between members of the opposite sex? Why do you reject my explanation (that societies universally have this social institution called "marriage", defined as a union between males & females, because societies actually obtain benefits from having this definition of marriage), and what explanation can you offer in its stead?

I should have said the restriction against same-sex marriage was universal - for the past 2000 years of history. Obviously, it no longer is.

As you say, Vicki, historically there have been several societies which accepted homosexual behaviour. And yet all of these societies defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Is there a reason for this insistence on marriage between a man and a woman, and the universal historical rejection of same-sex marriage?

I think there is. And the reason, obviously, is procreation. Not only that, but I will insist that procreation was more important earlier in history than it is now. How so? The answer is relatively simple. There were comparatively few people around at earlier times, and the farther back in history we go, the fewer people there were.

This is an animated graph of the growth of the human population since 1 A.D.:

Animated graph of the growth of humanity since 1 A.D.

Here is a link to another estimate of the world's population growth since 10 000 B.C.:

World population growth history

Here is a graph of the growth of the human population since 0 A.D.:



Earlier in history there were many fewer people, and the available techniques used to build houses, farm the land and produce everything else that was necessary for survival were primitive. All work was labour-intensive. Much work needed to be done, and a lot of people were needed to do the work, and few people were available.

In other words, it was critically important that societies earlier in history managed to produce all the workers necessary to provide all the labour that those societies needed to survive.

Bear in mind, too, that we have every reason to believe that child mortality was high in most societies earlier in history. If those societies had allowed a large fraction of their (small) populations to eschew 'traditional marriage' and live in same-sex relationships, producing no children, those societies would probably have been doomed.

Remember what God says according to Genesis to the humans he created on the sixth day of creation:

Well, humanity has rather achieved that goal now, don't you think? Not only have we all but filled the earth - see the animated graph above - but we have subdued the earth to the point that we are about to overwhelm it and quench it:

Earlier in history, there were few people around, but a largish number of people were necessary to provide the labour needed for those historical societies to survive. It was critically important that people back then produce as many children as possible. For that reason, most societies have traditionally outlawed any homosexual relationships at all, and all societies that existed back in history have, as far as we know, forbidden same-sex marriages (or insisted on opposite-sex marriages).

But the world in which we live isn't the same as the world that our ancestors lived in. We need other things than they did in order to survive.

Sure, we need children too. That goes without saying. But I don't see any signs that humanity isn't still producing rather more than the number of children it needs to survive.

The title of this thread is 'Protecting Marriage to Protect Children'. Well, I'd say that those historical societies that forbade homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage didn't do so to protect children. Rather they did so to produce children, as many children as possible.

It should perhaps be pointed out that Catholic Christianity has offered celibacy for both men and women as a real, highly respectable alternative to child-producing marriages. Interestingly, Catholicism has occasionally celebrated celibacy even in marriage, so that a married couple did well if they stayed childless for quite a long time back when contraceptives weren't available. But for Catholicism, too, the only alternative to marriage as a way of producing children has been a noble form of celibacy. And the reason for why Catholicism has praised celibacy may be that Catholicism traces its roots back to when the first Christians expected the world to come to an end very shortly:

But few societies have, like the early Catholics, expected the world to come to an end probably within the lifetimes of most of its living members. Therefore they needed to provide for the future and create children to take care of this future. The father who was the head of the polygamous family I posted an image of earlier would have been a hero in many historical societies. Today it would not be a good thing if every sixth man produced thirty children, twenty-nine of which survived, and forced five out of six men to live in celibacy or in homosexual relationships.

Ann

Ann,

That's where I disagree. The sexual urge is suffient to ensure that people are going to procreate. In fact, in an earlier post you spoke about about the frustration of unmarried men in Egypt. The reason they can't have sex is because their society insists on the institution of marriage. If they lived in a marriageless society, there would be no reason to "wait until you are married." People would be having more sex, not less.

No, marriage was not invented in order to get people to have babies. It was invented because people were having babies, and society needed to provide for and, to a degree, regulate the upbringing of those babies. Society needed to ensure a safe and stable environment. It needed to ensure, among other things, that the father would stick around! It needed to protect the rights of the children, those of the father, and those of the mother.

It is obvious that a society needs each generation to produce the next generation, and that is why societies promote the idea that people should grow up, marry, and have children. But the reason for the marriage, per se, is not to get you to have the children, but rather to provide for and protect the children that you are going to have. So, I disagree with your conclusion, and I maintain just the opposite.

[Edited to correct a typo.]

Vicki, you said:

That is probably true in most cases, at least before there were contraceptives. On the other hand, if homosexuality became too popular, men might possibly prefer childless homosexual relationships over married, child-producing relationships with women. According to a book about ancient Greece that we have in my school, homosexuality was a part of young man's education in that society. An older man became the young man's teacher and mentor, but also his lover. When the young man had reached a certain age, he was no longer the older man's lover. Instead, later on, he himself took a younger man under his wings, and that young man became his lover. So you can say that (male) honomsexuality was institutionalised in ancient Greece.

Yet in Greece, and certainly in Athens, men were required to marry a woman. Not only that, but according to the book we have at my school, the men of Athens were required to have sex with their wives at least three times a month, to make sure that the population of Athens did not decline. It might have done so, if a lot of the Greek men had preferred homosexual activites over their married bed. So married sex with his wife was a man's lawful duty in Athens.

As for the functions of women in ancient Greece, I can't resist quoting this passage from Against Naera by Demosthenes (384&#8211;322 BC):

Do men necessarily take care of their children, if they know that the children are theirs? When I read the Bible, I don't see many signs that fathers back then did a lot to provide for their children. Yes, Joseph took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod (maybe - the other Gospels do not repeat that story) and Jairus, a patron of the synagogue, asked Jesus to raise his daughter. And there is of course the story of the prodigal son and his kind and forgiving father. Otherwise the fathers seem to be very distant from their children in the Biblical stories, and it is the mothers who care for the children.

Please note that you don't need marriage to have mothers who take care of their children. A famous story from 1 Kings 3 tells the story of two harlots who come before Solomon to fight over one living child:

You don't need marriage to take care of children. The way I see it, the chief historical function of marriage (at least the kind where the woman is punished most severely for infidelity) has been to let the father know what children are his, so that he can make decisions for them (for example, decisions about who his children will marry). Marriage also allowed the father to know what boys were his, so that he could pass his property on to them. But fatherhood did not necessarily require the man to provide for his children very much.

So let me amend what I said in my previous post: The two chief functions of marriage have been to produce children, and to let the fathers know what children are theirs, so that they can make decisions for them, and so that they can pass their property on to their own sons.

Ann

Oh my. What I said and what I meant to say were two different things. I appreciate you changing the word, but it wasn't the word that I was worried about. I was worried about aiming your words at an individual instead of calmly discussing an issue. I know you didn't curse at him, but you were sort of aiming in his general direction. That's why I said to be careful.

Anyway, thanks for softening the blow.

By the way I keep hearing about how society invented marriage, but we don't have any evidence of that. It is just as likely that marriage was around before society. Both institutions predate our written records.


Elisabeth

I'm probably going to regret posting this, but... what the heck.

I have a question. Why is something that some consider a religious sacrament even part of the law of the state?

So here’s my solution. Dissolve all marriages. To avoid mass confusion, current marriages could be converted into civil unions. No ‘marriage’ in the future would have any legal ramifications. If people want to file a civil union, they can. If they want to have some sort of ‘joining ceremony’ they can (although this wouldn’t be the government’s responsibility - they would just keep track of civil unions that are filed properly with the appropriate authorities).

Governments wouldn’t keep track of marriage. A local church or union hall or some internet nut with a marriage fetish could do that if they wanted. But as far as the government would be concerned, marriage simply wouldn’t exist for any legal purposes.

Then give civil unions all the rights and responsibilities currently associated with marriage.

And then, if you want to have a ‘marriage ceremony,’ you can circle your bridegroom, stand under a canopy, drink rice wine, recite vows in front of a minister or share your vows with your favourite tree or local wicca priestess. But until you truck on down to the courthouse and file the papers necessary for a civil union (and, no, your marriage papers don’t count - especially since they could have been created by your favourite tree ), there are no legal ramifications to your ‘marriage ceremony.’

But get rid of the word ‘marriage’ from the law all together. Make civil unions possible for any two consenting adults who want their finances and property dealt with as part of a single ‘household’. It would make all people equal and would allow people to decide for themselves what the meaning and purpose of ‘marriage’ is - instead of making the state define it.

Just an idea, of course.

ML

Small nitpick, Elisabeth.

Can you really have marriage if you don't have a society? Marriage is an institution, but can you have an institution if you don't have a society?

I know. It says in the Bible that Eve was Adam's wife. Well, there was no society around back then, assuming you believe that the Bible tells the truth about the origins of humanity. Still the Bible calls Eve Adam's wife:

We see no ceremony uniting Adam and Eve, apart from what Adam says about a man leaving his father and his mother to be united with his wife, so that they will be one flesh. (It is quite interesting that Adam is talking about a man leaving his father and his mother, since Adam himself can certainly have no knowledge of what it means to have a mother. Conceivably God can be seen as his father.) Anyway, I don't think we can see an official ceremony uniting Adam and Eve, but even so they were apparently married.

What about Adam and Eve's children? They would have to marry their sisters and brothers, since no other people would be available. (And if there were other people there as well, then the creation of Adam and Eve just wouldn't be all that it is cracked up to be.) Anyway, through what ceremony would Adam and Eve's children be united in marriage? How could we know which of them was married to whom? Would it be enough that Adam's sons repeated their father's words about a man leaving his father and mother to be united with his wife?

When there existed more 'official' societies, it would probably not be enough for a man to repeat Adam's words for him to be married to the woman he had chosen.

So, Elisabeth, is it really possible to have marriage without a society?

Ann

I've heard that they married apes.

Vicky I wonder if you might be interested in my personal journey on this question.
When I first heard about same sex marriage I was against it too. But I was hard pressed to come up with any reasons that I could really defend, other than religious ones.
I do believe that religions have the right not to recognize these marriages . But from a civil law point of view there's just not a leg to stand on.
The funny thing is, gays and lesbians used to be villified for their so called promiscuous lifestyle. Now that they want to get married, some of the same people are criticizing that too.
I have to ask, what does it hurt if two people commit to loving and supporting each other for life. Surely society can only benefit from this.

I actually had a hard time coming round to this myself. Then I heard someone say -- I don't mind at all , if only they don't call it marriage. That struck me as so silly that it stuck in my mind and made me open up my mind rethink my position.

Allie,

First, thank you for posting, and telling your story. I also supported same-sex marriage, back when I believed the only objections were religious. In fact, I came to the same conclusion you did - I thought we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, while allowing churches to "opt out" if they choose not to conduct same-sex marriage services. It was only after I began to understand the complexity of the issue that I opened my mind to the possibility that society actually benefits from the traditional definition of marriage, and that there are valid reasons to oppose changing it.

I also now believe the solution of changing the definition of marriage while at the same time allowing churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriages is not a viable one.

One reason I believe this solution would not work is the current situation with the Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scout membership requirements exclude homosexuals. The ACLU has been very successful in litigation prohibiting any government sponsorship of Boy Scout activities, preferential access to government resources, etc.

With this precident, it seems highly likely to me that a change in the legal definition of marriage will result in churches being forced to choose between performing same-sex marriages or losing their tax-exempt status. An even greater concern is that churches which continue to refuse to perform same-sex marriages be sued for hate crimes.

Because of this very real threat to freedom of religion, the solution which struck you as silly actually makes a lot of sense. Allow a civil union with the full weight of marriage, including the rights and priviledges of marriage, yet called by another name. This is the the only solution I can think of that would allow society to permit the union of same-sex couples while at the same time guaranteeing the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion - churches would be allowed to continue to perform traditional marriage ceremonies and remain faithful to their religious doctrines.*

* [edited to add: this is assuming society decided it wanted to allow same-sex unions, and grant them the rights of a marriage. I am not saying I think our society should do this, only that if it decides to do this, then the way to go seems to me to be to create a separate institution.]

Ann,

I will agree with you that all societies have made a clear connection between marriage and marital relations. Our own society does not set a fixed frequency, but we do allow for divorce based on lack of marital relations, or annulment based on lack of consumation. This really does not contradict what I have said, since I do maintain that society promotes the idea that people should grow up to marry and have children. That some societies have used obligatory marital relations as a means of producing more children does not surprise me in the least.

You say that you do not need marriage to raise children. Do you mean that any given individual can have and raise children without the benefit of marriage, or are you saying that you believe society as a whole does not benefit from the institution of marriage as a means of forming family units within which to raise the next generation?

I don't think Marriage is just to have children. I'm a Christian and believe what the Bible stated that marriage was given by God to a man and woman.

And we shouldn't redinfine something God has given.