What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Interesting op-ed piece about marriages in SF from the Pacific News Service :

I have seen the future, and it's San Francisco
San Francisco is in the limelight again, and I think for a good reason. The scene at City Hall may seem like the Boston Tea Party to outsiders. But we?re not seceding. We?re only sending back hopeful images of a tolerant America, from a nearby future.

 

Cheveyo:

"I'm not asserting that both are harmful, obviously. I'm confirming the rather obvious fact that both cause results that the other alternatives do not."

As I noted, not all marriages cause children. Not all children cause marriage. Not so obvious a fact; in fact, not so much a fact in reality.

You're disputing something I didn't actually write. Let's go over what I wrote:

"Both [heterosexuality and beer] cause results that the other altenatives do not."

Heterosexual intercourse causes pregnancy, not every time, but it does cause pregnancy. Do you disagree?

Homosexual intercourse never causes pregnancy. Do you disagree?

It seems like what I'm asserting as a fact is, in reality, factual.


Again, heterosexual intercourse does not always cause pregnancy.

So what? They sometimes do. Homosexual intercourse never does. Or do you disagree?

While it's true that not all heterosexual intercourse causes pregnancies, the vast majority of pregnancies come from heterosexual intercourse, and none come from homosexual intercourse.


And as an aside, beer, OJ, and milk all have the capacity to make one sick.

Heterosexual and homosexual intercourse both can spread disease.

Beer, OJ, and milk taste better if they're fresh.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality both begin with the letter "H."

So what?


I did say neglect. I did not say ignore. by using the carefully selected word "neglect" instead of "ignore" to say that you are not giving these facts just credibility.

I've spent many posts on the fact that not every marriage results in childbirth. Just because my position doesn't match yours doesn't mean I'm neglecting the facts.


but, did you not just finish saying that gay marriage cannot be legal because the couple cannot biologically reproduce? In fact, you even go on to say: There isn't an inevitable relationship between marriage and reproduction, but there has always been a relationship.

Isn't this contradictory to your above statement?

In a word, no.

As a template, there is a relationship between reproduction and marriage as is currently defined -- to the point that many of the priveleges extended to marriage are done so because of the children that result.

There are exceptions to the rule that marriage leads to children, sure.

But, as a template, gay couples cannot reproduce: we're not talking about exceptions arising through either choice or malfunctioning organs. No matter how healthy a homosexual couple, no matter how much the two desire to procreate, it can't be done.


"I'm arguing that the stronger the relationship is, the better it is for society."

Then you're arguing pointlessly, for I agree with this statement wholeheratedly. What it sounds like you are arguing, though, is that homosexual couples cannot have a strong, intimate relationship--at least not as strong as heterosexuals can. I believe this argument is unprovable with either science, sociology, psychology, or politically. I'd love to hear you try, though.

Let me be clear: the stronger heterosexual relationships are, the better it is for society because of the environment that establishes for the children that may result from that relationship.

I could do it, but here I'm not going to argue that homosexual couples can't have strong relationships. They can't possibly procreate, so the impact on society can't possibly be as pronounced.


I think we all agree that homosexuals can't procreate without third-party intervention (surrogate). So how will denying gay marriage work toward the "goal" of "limiting the umber of births out of wedlock,to ensure that the greatest possible proportion of childbirths arise from marriage"?

First, let's frame the question correctly:

It's not "how will denying gay marriage work toward some goal...?" That implies that gay marriage is somehow the status quo (it isn't), and that the opponents are moving to deny it because of some future benef

 

I could do it, but here I'm not going to argue that homosexual couples can't have strong relationships. They can't possibly procreate, so the impact on society can't possibly be as pronounced.

Not true at all. Haven't you watched The 'L' Word?

And what do children have to do with the discussion, anyway? Same-sex couples can have children without being legally married. Wouldn't it be better if the parents of these childrens were legally married?

Another interesting article about the difference that being able to enter into a civil marriage can make:


From the SF Chronicle
WEDDING PERKS: Married couples save on inheritance, insurance
Getting hitched isn't just romantic and symbolic. It's a good deal financially.

For straight couples, married status is interwoven with legal and financial benefits for taxes, retirement, property ownership, inheritance, insurance rates, family and medical care, even car rentals.

But for the thousands of gay and lesbian couples flocking to San Francisco to get married, whether they'll be granted the rights and privileges that come with marriage is up in the air.

 

The sky is falling!

 

Dozens line up for gay weddings in New Mexico county
By Susan Montoya Bryan
The Associated Press

Saturday, February 21, 2004 -

BERNALILLO, N.M. ? Gay and lesbian couples lined up to tie the knot today in this northern New Mexico town after the county clerk agreed to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, joining San Francisco.

I read about this earlier... I think it's great!

Here's another one:

Cambodian king says gays should be allowed to marry
(02-20) 13:11 PST PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP)
After watching TV images of gay weddings in San Francisco, Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk said Friday that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.



Maybe when more people realize that the sky isn't going to fall just because you legalize same-sex marriage, people in general will be more open-minded and tolerant.

 

New Mexico law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties but it does not mention gender.

So, if the decision on who may be married rests with the county clerk, those marriages are legally binding throughout the state.

However, if there is any statute, from the county level (for that county) on up to the state level, defining the requirements for marriage and specifying that it must be between one man and one woman, they are not valid.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If there is no law on the books defining it as one man, one woman, I would presume that those homosexual marriages granted from today until any law is passed prohibiting them, would be valid even if a law is later passed. (It would be ex post facto to try and apply the law to marriages previously granted, wouldn't it?)

 

Ok, I have read some of the arguements since I have left. I want to post a link again that gives references to the studies that were conducted on homosexuality. These resources are very reputable and I challenge any of you to take all of these sources and refute their validity.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1034938/posts

 

I think our society has a child fetish, though.

I think you're right, FIDo.

And it bothers me. People don't need to promote reproduction anymore. It's not like lots of kidlings are needed to help out on the farm.

People should only have kids if they want them.

Bubba:

I could do it, but here I'm not going to argue that homosexual couples can't have strong relationships. They can't possibly procreate, so the impact on society can't possibly be as pronounced.

Why is it that relationships that produce children are more significant than relationships that don't? It's almost like you're saying that parents are more valuable contributors to society than non-parents.

How many children have resulted from homosexual relationships?

How many children have resulted from heterosexual relationships?

Is this point so unclear?

A relationship is not "better" or "worse", or more or less ideal, because children may or may not be involved.

It is unfair to refuse to legally validate a couple's relationship simply because they can't have children.

First, let's be clear: if a child is being raised by a homosexual couple, at most only one of them is his biological parent.

Being a biological parent doesn't exactly require talent. It only requires removal of clothing.

If a child is adopted, neither of his/her parents are his/her biological parents. However, they are still his/her parents in every sense of the word.

If a homosexual couple does not provide the best environment for child-rearing, is there anything the government can do to help make up the difference? I don't see how.

The same thing the government can do to "help" a heterosexual couple who either isn't raising a child or isn't providing the best environment for child-rearing.

. Very few kids are being raised by gays, and the benefit of extending marriage to those gays may be more than offset by the negative consequences of increased illegitimacy.

Are adopted children considered "illegitimate" even if they are being raised by two parents?

Tina:

I always knew I liked New Mexico.

Maybe when more people realize that the sky isn't going to fall just because you legalize same-sex marriage, people in general will be more open-minded and tolerant.

It certainly would be nice, just like when people realized that allowing women to work outside the home wasn't going to turn them all into man-hating feminists.

Ki-Adi Bundi:

Vezner: When I can post an article from BGLAD or NOW or the ACLU and expect to be taken seriously, I will take your article from your "conservative news source" as unbiased.

 

Ok, I have read some of the arguements since I have left. I want to post a link again that gives references to the studies that were conducted on homosexuality. These resources are very reputable and I challenge any of you to take all of these sources and refute their validity.


C'mon, that's from a CONSERVATIVE news forum.

If America truly values liberty and freedom, then there's no reason to deny gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law... including, of course, civil marriage.

 

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"


I don't buy biased websites claims, especially from conservatives.

 

I don't buy biased websites claims, especially from conservatives.

ditto

 

I feel that the pro traditional marriage group is worried much more by image than by actual numbers, and rightfully so. I get the impression that they think that if the government allows same sex marriages, then people will think (not they themselves) that marriage does not mean as much. Since that 2% would then get married (I thought it was a little more though), it makes marriage more about having sex than about having kids. So people who have sex will get married and since relationships based on sex don't work out, there would be more divorces. Yet with more sex means more children, so more kids out of wedlock and therefore more abuse/pain/whatever. Or something along those lines. And they do have some evidence to back it up (Scandinavia stats).

I have trouble understanding and accepting that logic because I feel and like to believe that people are smart enough to make their own decisions. I also feel that a good compromise can prevent that problem. Would someone who thinks same sex marriages should not be please explain to me why the problem that you worry about would still exist if the government encourages life long monogamous relationships as opposed to any specific type of sexuality?

 

And also remember, Vezner, that although a homosexual support site was referenced in the FreeRepublic.com (!) reports, sections of the homosexual community are as adamant that homsexuality not be genetic as the conservative community, simply because they fear abortions/culling and hence social extermination and labelling as mutants.

It's a complex issue.

 

I want to post a link again that gives references to the studies that were conducted on homosexuality.

Well, let's take a look at some of the things said in that link:


Gender is an innate component of a person?s being and an essential characteristic of individual identity and purpose.

It's nice to know that my individual purpose is intrinsically tied to my gender. Am I supposed to be a teacher or a nurse?


Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of building a nuclear family--the place where children historically and statistically fare best.

Historically and statistically ....

In America?
In Western civilization?
In the world?


Same sex attraction is a symptom of a developmental disorder that can often be prevented and can be treated.

I'll just wait for someone to post a link disputing the ability to "treat" homosexuality, since others here probably already know where to find those.


Homosexual behavior has implications far beyond the bedroom. Last year the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on AIDS treatment, research and programs. AIDS in the U.S. is largely a homosexual disease stemming from unhealthy sexual practices.

It's unfair, I believe, to blame AIDS on homosexuality, as it definitely spread through heterosexuality and drug use as well.


There are many consensual behaviors that current laws and customs have deemed harmful because of their negative effect on society. Drug use, prostitution, rape and incest are examples of activities that happen in the "privacy of bedrooms."

There's a nice contradiction - rape is not one of those "consensual behaviors" referred to in the first sentence.


As you can see, I don't find this particular page very reputable, so I'm not going to blindly accept its analysis of any studies. If you would like to present a particular study and discuss its impact on this debate, by all means, select one, but I am not going to follow every link on that site trying to find a valid point to back up your argument.

 

Enforcer,
I'm curious, where did you get the 2% figure and does it mean 2% of the population or of people who get married?

At any rate, people can have sex without getting married regardless of whether they're heterosexual or not. And same-sex couples, as well as heterosexual couples, can have children without getting married.

But I think it's better to raise kids in a family that's legally married. For one thing, there are more legal rights, protections and benefits.

I don't buy the Scandinavian figures some people want to use to back up their arguments. I have not seen anything that would prove a cause-effect relationship between the two variables involved.

 

Tina

Someone said that above, I just used it. I don't think it is right though (the percentage is low though, a good bit lower than 10%, maybe 7 I thought). But keep in mind that not all gays are just going to marry. Some don't care, some don't want to settle down, a lot like single guys and girls.

 

I don't buy biased websites claims, especially from conservatives.

And I don't buy documents that give their references as "See Fast Facts #73-83" as that document does. That's not a serious claim, that's a Denny's placemat. If I printed that up, there'd be a little maze and a connect-the-dots on the other side.

 

Enforcer,

If the figure referred to the percentage of the general population that is gay/lesbian, it does seem low.

Most figures I've heard are around 10% or so of the population. But that's just gay & lesbian. It doesn't include bisexual people, who might wish to marry either as a straight or gay couple depending on the person they fall in love with.

And it does seem like bisexual people should have the freedom to get married either with someone of the opposite sex or with a same-sex partner.

 

Have you people even bothered to look at the site? The sources cited on the claims are not from conservative sites or studies but from scientific ones. It just happens that some conservatives collected the data and compiled it all together for easy access. If you think that the claims are BS, go to the source and see for yourself. They cite everything.

You call conservatives narrow minded and yet you wont even be open minded enough to look at what the opposition is saying and checking out the sources from which they get their facts! I for one am not afraid to look at a liberal's site. I take things objectively. So far the only reaction I have had from you liberals is that of pure narrow mindedness.

"And I don't buy documents that give its references as "See Fast Facts #73-83" as that document does. That's not a serious claim, that's a Denny's placemat. If I printed that up, there'd be a little maze and a connect-the-dots on the other side."

It's called citation. You might want to try it sometime.

 

Vezner,

I don't need to look at any website or any study to know where I stand on the issue. I'm a proud lesbian, most of my friends are gay or lesbian, and I know how hard it has been for some same-sex couples to have to constantly encounter discrimination on account of not being able to be legally married.

Please don't tell me that I need to look at a website to know that discrimination is wrong, that it goes against all the values that America cherishes -- freedom, equality, liberty -- and that it's time things began to change!

 

Well, that's fine then Tina. Just don't try to tell me how to live either. The one thing that I have noticed about many activists is that they are pretty quick to push their beliefs on others while at the same time they condemn those that try to stick up for their own beliefs.

As far as you being discriminated against, believe it or not I support equal rights. Go back about three pages and read what I have said. You still see my stance on the Gay Marriage issue. I am hardly about denying Gay couples the legal rights of marriage.

womberty, I applaud you for at least looking at the link. However your responses have all been purely opinion. If you have reputable sources that can refute the claims made on that site, I would be happy to view them.

 

You're disputing something I didn't actually write. Let's go over what I wrote:
"Both [heterosexuality and beer] cause results that the other altenatives do not."
Heterosexual intercourse causes pregnancy, not every time, but it does cause pregnancy. Do you disagree?
Homosexual intercourse never causes pregnancy. Do you disagree?
It seems like what I'm asserting as a fact is, in reality, factual.

In order to accurately state your assertion as fact, you would have to include "always" as a qualifier for heterosexual sex, just as you add "never" as a qualifier for homosexual sex. You and I both know heterosexaul sex does not always cause pregnancy. This is what you are failing to define within the very strict confines of what you believe a family is and should be.

Having said that, homosexuals can and do often have biological offspring, though not from the same partner. This is conducive to a divorced or single-parent marrying someone other than the biological co-parent after conception.

How, pray tell, does that fit into your scheme?

Given the above, I disagree based on the restrictive qualifiers you provide.

So what? They sometimes do. Homosexual intercourse never does. Or do you disagree?

See above. You can't dismiss an argument with "So what". That is why I say you fail to address the issue. Some heterosexuals can NEVER conceive, just as homosexuals can NEVER conceive. Given this, one can truthfully say that SOME couples can NEVER conceive, without identifying them as straight or gay.

What does this mean? This means that the only difference between a gay couple and a heterosxeual couple who cannot conceive is their gender combination. It is for this singular reason that you are willing to deny rights. This is the fallacy of the anti-gay marriage argument.

While it's true that not all heterosexual intercourse causes pregnancies, the vast majority of pregnancies come from heterosexual intercourse, and none come from homosexual intercourse.

The vast majority of Americans are Christian. This does not validate any law restricting the worship of other or no religions.

[Refering to my reference that beer, OJ, and milk can make one sick]: So what?

My point--which you kindly expounded upon (thank you for that) was that the analogy made no sense and held no logic as a workable analogy.

I've spent many posts on the fact that not every marriage results in childbirth. Just because my position doesn't match yours doesn't mean I'm neglecting the facts.

But you are neglecting them, as seen in that very same post, wherein you said: "So what?"

As a template, there is a relationship between reproduction and marriage as is currently defined -- to the point that many of the priveleges extended to marriage are done so because of the children that result.

The template argument doesn't hold up legally--as may likely see if it is argued at the SC level--because there is no legal relationship between reproduction and marriage. If there were, countless heterosexual couples in America would be denied marriage certificates or would be forced to annul their marriages because they biologically cannot conceive (as is true with homosexual couples).

There are exceptions to the rule that marriage leads to children, sure.

So, the exception is biased toward gays?

But, as a template, gay couples cannot reproduce: we're not talking about exceptions arising through either choice or malfunctioning organs. No matter how healthy a homosexual couple, no matter how much the two desire to procreate, it can't be done.

Artificial insemenation, previously heterosexual relationship. These don't count? They count for heterosexuals, why not for homosexuals?

Let me be clear: the stronger heterosexua

 

"Vezner, where is the impartiality of your "report"? I'm seeing a lot of "statistics" with no information on how they were obtained, or within what field.

It sure makes all homosexuals out to be evil, dirty, criminals, though, doesn't it?"

Each claim is supported by the reference to where the information was found. If you don't believe the claim, check out the reference. I'm not going to do it for you because I haven't the time nor desire to hold your hand while you research the issue. I've already done it for myself but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to your own opinion. You need to learn for yourself.

 

Well, that's fine then Tina. Just don't try to tell me how to live either.

Excuse me, Vezner, but you are saying that you are being told what you can and cannot do??? By whom?

I believe it is you who are telling people like Tina what they should or should not be allowed to do.

Just pointing out the obvious. You're no victim, here Vezner. Sorry.

 

And I don't buy documents that give their references as "See Fast Facts #73-83" as that document does. That's not a serious claim, that's a Denny's placemat. If I printed that up, there'd be a little maze and a connect-the-dots on the other side.

Luckily I'm not a democrat.