What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

I'm not trying to be a victim. Never have considered myself to be. I'm just stating that it's pretty easy now days to see activists accuse the majority of discrimination when they really have no ground to hold their arguments on. I am totally content with my stance on the gay rights issue. Like I said, read about three pages back and you will see that I am not against Gay rights. However I wont have gay activists try to make me believe some of the things that they claim about their homosexuality. That is why I have posted the link that I have and stated the claims that I have. Read about 3 pages back and you will understand where I come from. Until then, don't bother trying to accuse me of anything until you have studied it out for yourself.

In fact, start on page 98 if you want to get the full story.

In the meantime, I will repost this exert that I find to be very truthful:
"There's a reason that marriage has evolved to what it is, there's a reason marriage started out and evolved to what it is. The vast number of marriages take place to legitimize children, to provide a family tree, to provide lineage, to provide a genealogical identity. The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children. It has been found to be the best way to do it. The proof of the fact that it is, is the divorce rate. We cite the divorce rate and we do so in terms of its damage to children. We cite the divorce rate and we cite the out of wedlock birth rate as evidence to suggest that children who grow up without a mother and father in the home don't do as well as children who do. The nuclear family is the best way to do things.

It is not some authority which has said this to deny people who can't participate certain opportunities. It has evolved over the course of years and years, thousands and thousands of years of human civilization - civilization. It is the civilized way of creating families, creating human beings, raising them to be responsible people. If it weren't, we wouldn't care about the divorce rate. If it weren't, we wouldn't care about the illegitimacy rate. There wouldn't be such thing as illegitimacy, there wouldn't be people concerned about it.

One of the groups that's most opposed to this, black Americans who are devout churchgoers know how important it is because it is in their community that the illegitimacy rate is the highest. It's in the 70%. It is tearing the black community apart, and some people there know it.

This is simply a fact of time, it is a fact of life. Nobody who got married did so going nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, I can do this and you can't. They got married because they were in love and they wanted to have a family. Not every married couple does have children, some of them have to adopt, some of them don't want them, some get married for other reasons, but the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people know that the marriage and the creation of a family is the best way to raise children.

I think it's insulting to people who have a heritage of slavery to compare the homosexual experience in America to that. I don't think there's any basis for that comparison, and it trivializes what slavery and the people who lived through it and have it as part of their heritage, trivializes what they've experienced and gone through and what their family members have gone through. It's an unfortunate, cheap attempt to piggyback on something and to co-opt life experiences of others, claim that you've experienced them yourselves so that you can advance a cause.

The real question is here, what does this matter? What's the big deal? If civil unions will get you everything a marriage will, then who needs marriage? What's the big deal? It doesn't make sense to me. I keep hearing that we got to have marriage rights so we can get visitation to hospitals, so we can have whatever else goes along. Civil unions will accomplish that. If civil unions will accomplish it and people are still not happy, then what's really going on here and I think the real answer to that question

 

womberty:

Well, then that brings you back to an argument that the purpose of marriage is related to childbirth - not child rearing, but simply the birth.

Who's made this argument? If I've used some written shorthand to suggest that I have, I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Hence, I keep bringing up the belief that heterosexual monogamy is the best environment to raise children.


At any rate, if you see this great big disconnect between the treatment of single people and marriage, why not push for the outright abolition of the institution? Growing its ranks (supposedly) while still excluding single people doesn't seem moral, from that standpoint.


Kessel:

Ideas are like a virus. They spread and eventually consume a nation. San Francisco has been a social leader for decades, and these past weeks has reclaimed it's title.

Not everything started in San Francisco led to utopia. The free love movement of the 1960's probably did harm with the scourges of sexually transmitted diseases in the 1970's and 1980's.

Beyond that...

If Andrew [Sullivan] is right about gay marriage, waiting is no doubt unfair to gays seeking to have their monogamous relationships legitimized by the state. But it was Edmund Burke ? the champion of temperamental conservatism ? who noted that sometimes we "must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes." Indeed, the conservative must point out that the beaches of history are littered not only with the human wreckage of bad ideas rushed out too quickly, but with the wreckage of good ideas rushed out too quickly as well. [link]

In this case, San Francisco is also paving the way for a complete disregard of the rule of law. That's not a good idea.

And for all its progressiveness, I believe San Francisco's solutions homelessness have not been as successful as, say, New York's.

I get the feeling, frankly, the San Fran isn't the lead dog on the sled of progressiveness, but the lead lemming hurtling toward the cliff of politcal tyranny and social chaos.


Not George, I believe, in the case of marriage, recognition is promotion.


anakin_girl:

"I explained myself, and you should respect my arguments enough to do likewise: explain why my arguments are completely invalid and explain why homosexuality should be treated as equivalent."

Because childbirth is not the be-all, end-all, sanctified act that some people are making it out to be?

So the government should be unconcerned about whether the next generation of Americans are going to be well integrated into society?


Because there are other reasons for getting involved with someone other than reproduction?

Regardless of the reasons, when a man and a woman get involved sexually, children are often the result.


"Hell, I'll concede that it may be not be a reason some people have sex, but it's still a result -- AND AN HUGELY IMPORTANT RESULT AT THAT."

No, it's a hugely important reason to use birth control, especially for people in my position who could be put in danger by being pregnant.

Your position?

Anyway, the reality is, not everyone uses birth control. If you believe in reproductive rights, you can't force them, either.

It might, then, be a good idea to promote heterosexual fidelity so that when pregnancy occurs, the child can be born in a stable environment to be raised by his two biological parents.

I cringe, frankly, when I see someone insisting that the historical biological connection between sex and childbirth is to be weakened even further, treating pregnancy as a negative and all-together unexpected consequence of sex.

The rocket has given man the opportunity to experience an evironment of micro-gravity, but we now know that prolonged exposure to such an environment causes bones and muscles to atrophy.

Likewise, the birth control pill has given us to have sex without the

 

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.

Or so they could put a spin on it.

Pick a study, let us know what the conclusion is, and link to that study.


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

A citation usually refers to a source, not a "Fast Fact." A "Fast Fact" is often given with no context, so you can understand the skepticism.


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

How does a homosexual couple having sex, getting married, or adopting children affect the way you live?


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.

Is it only my opinion that rape is not a consensual behavior?

Errors like that detract from any credibility you might ask me to give the site. If you want me to discuss one of the studies to which the site links, select one (or more), and maybe we can have a more productive discussion.


I wont have gay activists try to make me believe some of the things that they claim about their homosexuality.

Which claims are those?

That homosexuality was not a choice they made?

That homosexual couples can raise children without turning them into monsters?

Please, be a little more specific.


The vast number of marriages take place to legitimize children, to provide a family tree, to provide lineage, to provide a genealogical identity. The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children.

I ask again: do we allow single parents to marry for the sake of their existing children, or just for the benefit of children they may have later after marriage?

If marriage is for legitimizing and raising children, does a single mother marry to give her child a father and add a second parent to her child's home, or only for the benefit of children she might later have with her new husband?


EDIT"
Hence, I keep bringing up the belief that heterosexual monogamy is the best environment to raise children.

But that assertion cannot be supported by the fact that heterosexuals reproduce, so what did that have to do with the discussion?


At any rate, if you see this great big disconnect between the treatment of single people and marriage, why not push for the outright abolition of the institution?

Because I know it won't happen.

Seriously, though, that's precisely what I have advocated in the past, and it was one implementation of what was originally proposed by this thread (before the title changed).

 

Vezner:
The real question is here, what does this matter? What's the big deal? If civil unions will get you everything a marriage will, then who needs marriage? What's the big deal? It doesn't make sense to me. I keep hearing that we got to have marriage rights so we can get visitation to hospitals, so we can have whatever else goes along. Civil unions will accomplish that. If civil unions will accomplish it and people are still not happy, then what's really going on here and I think the real answer to that question is, there's a desire to undermine and weaken institutions because of some anger and rage that exists in certain communities. Over what, I couldn't tell you, but I know it when I see it."

The big deal is that if you have a system of civil unions for LBGT's and marriage for homosexuals, it amounts to a "separate but equal" system. And that's unfair and unconstitutional.

It's not just about those benefits. What the LBGT's want is equality. Now, that can be marriage for all, or civil unions for all (as OWM suggested), or nothing for anybody, but it has to be equal. Giving heteros something that homos don't get amounts to unfair discrimination.

 

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.

Okay, here's what your "proof" entails (from your listed source):

Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood.

This comes from NARTH.COM, whose singular goal is to "clarify that homosexuality is not "inborn," and that gays are not "a people," in the same sense that an ethnic group is "a people"--but instead, they are (like all of us) simply individuals who exhibit particular patterns of feelings and behavior...

...NARTH's function is to provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue.

In essence, they believe homosexuality to be a mental disorder, which has long since been disproved in the medical and psychological world.

More about your "sources" in a minute...

 

Vezner:
Each claim is supported by the reference to where the information was found. If you don't believe the claim, check out the reference.

The thing is, the claims they make don't have anything to do with recognizing gay relationships legally. Gay on gay violence, gays molest children disproportionately, gay kids more likely to do drugs, anal sex yields higher rates of STDs, homosexuality not genetic, etc. You'll find similar studies with the adjective "gay" replaced by "black," "white," "poor," "drug addicted," "criminal," "promiscuous," "male," "female," etc. But we don't limit the legal recognition of relationships between people to whom those adjectives apply, unless "gay" also does.

In 103 pages, this thread has made no suggestion better than that of the very first post. However, it's done a good job of showing what a divisive issue this is.

 

As far as the legality is concerned, why not this?:

"Well, why have separate sets labelled "civil union" and "marriage"? Why not consider "marriage" a subset of "civil union", and have the government only regulate the "civil union" part? That way, the government does not offer separate-but-equal treatment, and the definition of "marriage" is back in the hands of the people."

I am in complete support of this proposal. It would make most of the people that don't want gay unions to be called "marriage" happy because it wont be changing the definition of marriage, and it should theoretically make gay couples happy since they get the benefits that married people have. The only reason a gay couple wouldn't be supportive of this idea, IMO, is if they really do just thrive on causing trouble with the status quo and they refuse to give even an inch. That my friends, is hipocritical.

 

So the main gripe is over a word? How pathetic. No offence to anyone on either side, but arguing over a word really is.

 

There is one little statement that kills this argument against gay marriage. I'll repost it for you, from vezner's "testimonial":

The nuclear family is the best way to do things.

This is the whole of the argument against gay marriage. Does anyone disagree? Supposing that no one does, I'll contiue:

a) Who defines the nuclear family as "best"?
b) What specifically qualifies the nuclear family as "best"?
c) Are there other types of marriages and families that are legally recognized, thereby granted marriage benefits, protections, and responsibilities?
d) Are marriages not conducive to the nuclear family costruct still labelled "marriages"?
e) Are marriages outside the parameters of the nuclear family construct still permitted to marry?
f) Given that other marriages and family constructs are recognized despite their inability to qualify as "best", "ideal" or otherwise, why are homosexual unions treated differently from other less-then best ideals?

 

That all depends on the word. Marriage is a very important word, obviously, to many, many people.

 

And for all its progressiveness, I believe San Francisco's solutions homelessness have not been as successful as, say, New York's.


Well, to be fair homelessness is a complex issue that has more variables than same-sex marriage. Even weather is a part of the problem. San Francisco has always drawn homeless from other parts of the state and country, in part, because of its weather. It's alot easier to be homeless in a place like San Francisco, than it is in New York with its winters.

As for the issue of free love, I don't think that this could be blamed for causing more STD's, however it had pros and cons, no doubt. It was also tied closely to the ERA movement for women, and thus served a positive purpose as well.

And as Tina and I have pointed out, this has moved beyond San Francisco. With New Mexico now issuing licenses and even overseas political leaders supporting the movement, the issue is being moved to the forefront of political discourse.

 

"a) Who defines the nuclear family as "best"?"

Thousands of years of civilization and even more studies on human development does. The rest is elementary.

 

"Well, to be fair homelessness is a complex issue that has more variables than same-sex marriage."

After going through pages and pages of debate on same sex marriage, I find this statement to be somewhat humorous.

 

So the main gripe is over a word? How pathetic. No offence to anyone on either side, but arguing over a word really is.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

After going through pages and pages of debate on same sex marriage, I find this statement to be somewhat humorous.

To be fair, the same basic arguments have been going back and forth for all of this thread. I even made comment about this several pages ago. We're going in circles, not changing anyone's mind.

Homelessness is for another thread, let's just leave it at that.

 

That all depends on the word. Marriage is a very important word, obviously, to many, many people.

Then those people are very, very sorry. I do not believe bitching over a word constitutes a valid argument. Especially since civil unions and whatever else you wanna call them are the same thing.



Thousands of years of civilization and even more studies on human development does. The rest is elementary.

Umm...you know there are other forms of families out there. It's just more prevalent in America.


BTW, please don't bring up history or civilization. I get the feeling you haven't studied it enough. Given some of your posts on the matter.

EDIT: Forgot to say please.

 

I am in complete support of this proposal. It would make most of the people that don't want gay unions to be called "marriage" happy because it wont be changing the definition of marriage, and it should theoretically make gay couples happy since they get the benefits that married people have. The only reason a gay couple wouldn't be supportive of this idea, IMO, is if they really do just thrive on causing trouble with the status quo and they refuse to give even an inch. That my friends, is hipocritical.

Just like those pesky blacks should have minded their own business once the government granted them their very own sepearte but equal water fountains, right?

I'm sorry, but who's being hypocritical here?


Thousands of years of civilization and even more studies on human development does. The rest is elementary.

Using what criteria other than: "That's what I do, that's what Dad did, that what Grandpa did"? Show me the quantitative (or really even qualitative) proof that every homosexual lifelong monogomous couple is worse than every heterosexual lifelong monogomous couple.

 

Cheveyo:

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.

So, in order to accurately sate my assertion as fact, I have to include an adverb that we both know does not factually apply?

What the hell?


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.

"conducive"?

At any rate, a homosexual couple cannot have biological children. When you talk about some other person facilitating the process, you're doing so to the exclusion of one partner or the other.


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.

Sure, I can ask the relevence of whatever point you're making.

The "singular reason" for differentiating the two types of couples who cannot reproduce may be substantial. As I've said time and again, a heterosexual couple marrying and not having children still encourages heterosexual fidelity as the norm.

And, um, marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.


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

What's your point?


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.

Sure my analogy makes sense: between X, Y, and Z, if Z looks like X and Y superficially but leads to different results, there's nothing wrong with treating it differently.

By your reckoning, no analogy makes sense because you can always bring up irrelevancies about the analogy in question.


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).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but reproduction is the reason we have marriage. It ain't the couple's self esteem, it ain't tax credits, it ain't hospital visitation. It's the raising of children.

Sure, some marriages don't lead to childbirth, but there's a historical reason why that was okay, and there's a good reason to keep things as the are:

- Historically, it was damn hard to tell in the 1790s who was barren and who wasn't.

- Even now, promoting marriages -- regardless of whether they result in childbirth -- promotes heterosexual fidelity as the norm and helps ensure that more kids are indeed raised in that environment.


"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?

With AI, a homosexual couple isn't reproducing. With a previous hetero

 

Also, I have to point something very signifcant out in all these "studies" about homosexual behavior and marriage and all that.

Anyone here who took Statistics in college will know where I'm going with this :

In every example given by those against gay marriage, they site studies and statistics that are worded with such ambiguities as:

"X% are more likely to..."

This is a statistical projection, not a fact.

Then there are things like:

"Studies show that X% of "Y" [people] behave in "Z" manner."

All of these statistics have criteria, including a accuracy index of plus or minus x% points.

What is usually not provided is who participiated in the statistics. The same statistical survey can be given to a community in San Francisco and in Boise, and the results will not be the same.

The same works for opinion polls, by the way.
That is why so many politicians don't trust them.


EDIT: more mark-up issues

 

1/20, 9:57 pm
(quoted 1/21, 10:08 pm; 1/21, 12:22pm; 1/21, 12:25pm; 1/30, 2:49 pm; 2/4, 11:19 am; 2/4, 12:53 pm; 2/20, 2:26 pm; possibly elsewhere)

Even when the husband and wife have no children, their marriage can strengthen the institution by reinforcing the idea that heterosexual, monogamous fidelity is the norm. As a result, the current generation of children will be more likely to enter that institution when they grow up, and more of their kids will be raised by both their biological parents in the same house.

Child fetish in action.

 

Child fetish in action.

Said by someone who apparently thinks children either raise themselves or emerge from the womb fully ready to become productive, well-integrated members of society.

Or by someone whose myopia is so severe that he thinks the present self esteem of 5% of adults is more important than the ability of future generations of Americans to even function within western civilization.


EDIT: Fire, I was under the impression that we had agreed not to fling inflammatory comments toward each other. After all, don't you have a web journal for such antics?

If I am mistaken about such an agreement, I would appreciate it if we started avoiding such comments from this point on.

 

I said that? No ****. Actually no, I don't think that, you're about as bad as Ms. Cleo. ( ) I just don't think children should be the center of the universe, like most Americans seem to think. Sure you raise them properly and make sure they're loved, but people let them interfere too much into how they act. Like that breast thing...you know none of those people would've cared had they not had children.

Not every child is smart and cute, they're just like everyone else; a couple of winners, a whoooollle lot of losers.



Fire, I was under the impression that we had agreed not to fling inflammatory comments toward each other. After all, don't you have a web journal for such antics?

If I am mistaken about such an agreement, I would appreciate it if we started avoiding such comments from this point on.

No we never agreed to such a cease fire, it was more or less implied since your arguments seemed to disgust me. Though I think I'm beginning to understand them, I may disagree strongly with them, but I do understand them.

 

Or by someone whose myopia is so severe that he thinks the present self esteem of 5% of adults is more important than the ability of future generations of Americans to even function within western civilization.

Sorry, but this just seems preposterous to me, especially given that I was raised almost entirely by women. To argue that allowing gay men and women to wed is somehow going to erode the very fabric of society is just incredible to me. Being exposed to loving, positive relationships are never bad for kids. In fact, if anything it will reinforce to children that no matter what their sexuality, they can expect to find love and be a functioning part of society.

 

So, in order to accurately sate my assertion as fact, I have to include an adverb that we both know does not factually apply?

What the hell?

My point exactly.

"conducive"?

Sorry, had a brain fart... meant "correlates".

At any rate, a homosexual couple cannot have biological children. When you talk about some other person facilitating the process, you're doing so to the exclusion of one partner or the other.

Correct, exactly like heterosexual couples who cannot conceive. So how are homosexual couples so different from these types of heterosexual couples as to deny them the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities granted to these couples?

The "singular reason" for differentiating the two types of couples who cannot reproduce may be substantial. As I've said time and again, a heterosexual couple marrying and not having children still encourages heterosexual fidelity as the norm.

How does allowing (arguably) 2% of the population destroy the "norm" that is heterosexual fidelity?

Also, how does heterosexual marriage (who, according to unbiased census data, more than half the time end in divorce) encourage any fidelity as the norm?

And, um, marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

However, marriage as a recognized status grants rights (aka benefits, protections, responsibilities) that cannot be granted under any other status. Equal Rights, therefor, is an issue.

What's your point?

My point is that majority opinin does not equate to valid law.

By your reckoning, no analogy makes sense because you can always bring up irrelevancies about the analogy in question.

Just pointing out the obvious.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but reproduction is the reason we have marriage. It ain't the couple's self esteem, it ain't tax credits, it ain't hospital visitation. It's the raising of children/

Then you believe people like A_G and her husband should be denied their marriage certificate?

You keep saying this is not what you mean, but then you turn around and say this. If you believe A_G is allowed to marry despite her complete biological inability to marry (illustrating absolutely no procreative difference from a gay couple), then you are discriminating soley based on gender, thereby creating a second-class type of citizen who does not have equal rights as anyone else in the same circumstance.

Sure, some marriages don't lead to childbirth, but there's a historical reason why that was okay, and there's a good reason to keep things as the are:
- Historically, it was damn hard to tell in the 1790s who was barren and who wasn't.

But now we have the technology. Should they now be denied marriages?

- Even now, promoting marriages -- regardless of whether they result in childbirth -- promotes heterosexual fidelity as the norm and helps ensure that more kids are indeed raised in that environment.

See my above remarks re: this "reason".

With AI, a homosexual couple isn't reproducing. With a previous heterosexual relationship, a homosexual isn't reproducing.

The exact same holds true for heterosexuals who are AI, as well as heterosexuals who remarry. The child is not wholly biologically theirs, yet the family is recognized legally. So what is different about the exact same circumstance with homosexuals?

The fact that they are gay? What is that called? Hint: starts with a "B".

I love this answer: I wrote to you: Yeah, you keep pointing back to this harm thing, but you're not showing me any eveidence that gay marriage harms children in the family.

To which you responded:

I don't have to.

you're absolutely right. you don't have to. But... given that it seems to be

 

Fire, I agree that the cause of The Children [TM] is bandied about too much, but sometimes it's justified, particularly if the position isn't over-the-top. In this case, I'm merely supporting the idea of government promoting heterosexual monogamy as a unique institution for the sake of future generations. People are -- and should be -- free to do otherwise.

And if there are benefits of marriage (like hospital visistation) that can't be justifiably withheld from homosexual couples, I do support extending those benefits, with three provisos:

1. We don't extend every benefit of marriage just because a few them should be extended.

2. We extend the benefits through the legal process of changing the law via the legislature.

3. We extend the benefits to non-sexual couples, such as a man who needs to take care of an aging aunt, two old maid (or widowed) sisters, etc.

I don't think what I'm supporting is wholly intolerable for anybody except those who want nothing less than total and immediate victory for gay marriage -- federalism, rule of law, self-governance, and the effects on future generations be damned.


If I may say so, I would prefer to avoid us knocking heads in any manner that is less than civilized and respectful. You have your webjournal, and I implore you to limit your derision to that journal.