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

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.