Thursday, May 10, 2012
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?
Yesterday President Obama announced that he is now supporting same sex marriage after having earlier said that his views on the subject were "evolving." This comes only a day after the voters of North Carolina, with encouragement from the aging Billy Graham, approved a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages in that state. And earlier, on Sunday, Vice-President Joe Biden weighed in on the issue, lending his support for homosexual marriages. Thus the topic of marriage is certain to be a hot issue in the Fall election.
We need to put the issue in perspective. "Gay marriage" is not the beginning of the end. Rather, it is the end of the end, the final epitaph over the grave of the institution we once called "marriage." The very idea of a "gay marriage" would have been inconceivable if we had not already given up on the ideal of a two parent family raising their own biological children.
The theological rationale for marriage is the idea that human sexuality is something that is created by God, and that it has a specific God-ordained purpose. That purpose is to create a permanent bond between a man and woman in which they can procreate and raise children. Anything other than a permanent heterosexual relationship within the bond of marriage, or complete celibacy, is a deviation from the norm and therefore consistently condemned in Scripture. This includes fornication, adultery, divorce, and pornography, as well as the grosser sorts of sexual activity.
But, one might argue, the state has no interest in what God thinks about homosexuality. But, I reply, the state does have an interest in creating a rational social policy, and its current policy, or lack thereof, is frankly suicidal.
The legal rationale for marriage was to provide for a measure of social stability and to assure the proper socialization of our children. But if anyone can get married, and if no one has to get married in order to have a sexual relationship, the social rationale for the legal institution evaporates. Today all we have anymore is a series of transient relationships between persons of various "sexual orientations" engaging in different "alternative life-styles," and leaving a dismal trail of single moms struggling to raise children on their own. "Marriage" is little more than a legal relic, a mere technicality. What would homosexuals gain by the "right" to marry? Very little, it would seem, besides a few survivor's benefits.
But, one might argue, a pair of homosexuals living together in legal matrimony doesn't effect the marriages of heterosexual couples. It simply gives the homosexuals the same legal rights as everyone else.
Granted, it doesn't affect the marriages of heterosexuals who are married now. But what does the heterosexual couple down the street tell their children about "Adam and Steve"? Well, you say, that is simple. They should tell their children that Adam and Steve are perfectly normal and that what they are doing is socially acceptable. But how does that affect the children's concept of sex and marriage? Haven't we just told them that virtually anything that is done sexually between consenting adults is O.K.? How then will they establish stable marriage relationships? You say, they can, if they find the right partners. But the problem from society's standpoint is that given this kind of sexual license, only a relatively small minority will choose practice strict monogamy. The result for the majority will be, and already is, social chaos.
One could adopt a Libertarian argument and insist that each individual should be free to make his/her own life-style choices. But are we willing to take that argument to its logical conclusion and say that the taxpayers have no responsibility to pay for the treatment of STD's , or provide financial support for single parent families? Are we willing to say, "You are free to make your own choices, but you pay for your own mistakes; don't stick the tax-payers with the bill"? But where does that leave the children?
If we intend to make marriage a meaningful concept, then we should impose a penalty for violating it. How many gays would still want to be "married" if the penalty for adultery was a year in prison and a $5,000 fine?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If we intend to make marriage a meaningful concept, then we should impose a penalty for violating it. How many gays would still want to be "married" if the penalty for adultery was a year in prison and a $5,000 fine?
ReplyDeleteWhy bring gay into it?
Make adultery a crime for everybody.
Divorce? Make it illegal.
That would work.
The younger generation will flock back to the churches once they see how "hip" religious thinking really is as opposed to this cranky blue-nosed, caricature that the liberal media keeps creating out of thin air.
This includes fornication, adultery, divorce, and pornography, as well as the grosser sorts of sexual activity.
Oh, porn is off the menu?
That will work. You should really push that issue.
Maybe a boycott on old TV re-reruns of Baywatch?
Oh and what do you mean by "grosser sorts of sexual activity?"
Do that mean having sex with the lights on or something?
Yes, yes, and yes! Adultery should be a crime, no-fault divorce was a huge mistake, and porn wrecks marriages. I will let you guess what are the grosser sorts of sexual activity.
DeleteAdultery should be a crime...
DeleteNobody would support such an idea. It serves only to alienate people.
...no-fault divorce was a huge mistake...
Christians get divorced at the same rates as anyone else.
Nobody holds a gun to their heads.
It's like middle-class Catholics.
Their birth rate is the same as middle class non-Catholics.
Suspicious? I think so.
People make mistakes in choosing partners all the time. To punish them and make them miserable for the rest of their lives doesn't seem like a good idea.
Again, nobody will support this.
...and porn wrecks marriages.
Baywatch wrecks marriages? Where do you get this nonsense from?
I will let you guess what are the grosser sorts of sexual activity.
Look, you brought the subject up. Not me.
If you can't talk about it like an adult then perhaps we should let the matter drop.
If you think sex is icky then just do the usual thing that Christians do and pretend it doesn't exist.
Bob, the institution of marriage was a political tool supported by the church only when it conferred power to it, by becoming the middleman for the conveyance of property, enhance position, and promote certain favourable political alliances. The bit about what 'god' favoured was always an addendum for convincing the illiterate that the meddling priest caste knew 'special' stuff they didn't.
ReplyDeleteJust for fun, let's revisit what Judge Walker had to say about this whole 'for the good the children' spiel used by the religious to try to justify heterosexuals privilege in law:
Judge Walker (in the case of ruling California's Prop 8 as unconstitutional) found that:
70.The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. a.Tr 1025:4-23 (Lamb: Studies have demonstrated “very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” These results are “completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children’s adjustment.”);b.PX2565
American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
at 5 (2008): “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents —— concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people —— are unfounded.”;c.PX2547 (Nathans on Nov 12, 2009 Dep Tr 49:05-49:19:Sociological and psychological peer-reviewed studies conclude that permitting gay and lesbian individuals to marry does not cause any problems for children); PX2546at 2:20-3:10 (video of same).
71.Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.
73.Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships.Tr 1187:13-1189:6 (Lamb)
As a Canadian where gay marriage is legal, let me say that the sky has not fallen and that life continues for the majority of its citizens just as before. Traditional marriage has not been affected one iota (in fact, the marriage rate has increased and the divorce rate dropped since legalization) and children raised by caring and responsible adults of either gender are doing the same as before this ruling. What is specifically different now is the legal environment for gays who have married; like their heterosexual married neighbours, they now have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other married couple and are no longer excluded from visiting their spouses in hospital, making decisions on their behalf, inheriting, sharing assets as well as liabilities, access to spousal benefits and pensions, and so on. It's simply fair to be legally treated like any other citizen and most Canadians are okay with fair. In general terms, now that the root cause for legal discrimination - gay sex is icky - has been struck down, the justification for treating gays differently has also been undermined... especially in schools where bullying on the basis of sexual attraction is so predominant. It's a long and slow healing process. Passing and supporting laws to entrench heterosexual privilege is aligning one's self on the wrong side of history.
Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because he had a direct interest in the outcome - he himself is "gay." And as an experienced parent I can tell you that raising children is a challenge, even under the best of circumstances, and that no matter what you try to tell children, they need good role models, which requires a parent of the same sex as the child. Many of the homosexuals I know personally are socially maladjusted and are probably the victims of poor parenting themselves.
DeleteAs I tried to point out in the blog post, strictly speaking "gay marriage" is not a threat to heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage was possible because the institution of marriage had already collapsed.
The question is, where will the US and Canada be 50 or 100 years from now?
...and that no matter what you try to tell children, they need good role models, which requires a parent of the same sex as the child.
DeleteOtherwise they might run off and become a president one day.
(facepalm)
Many of the homosexuals I know personally...
Oh Bob. Don't. Please don't.
Next thing you'll be telling us about how many black friends you have and that some of you best friends are Jewish.
Bob, the compelling causal evidence should speak for itself. Supportive evidence showing that same-sex parenting cause children harm simply is not there. But why deal with reality when you can continue to empower your beliefs to take its place? That's the world you live in and you're welcome to it, but let's draw the line at you affecting another person's reality with your beliefs.
DeleteThere are obviously single parents who do an outstanding job raising their children - we would probably have to number Barak Obama's mother among them. And there are undoubtedly heterosexual couples who do an absolutely abominable job at parenting.\
DeleteAt the very least, however, I think it can be said that we have embarked on a bold, new social experiment, and no one knows exactly where it will lead. My argument is that we have witnessed a complete breakdown in public morality, and from a societal standpoint, it is likely the irresponsible behavior of heterosexuals that will be the major problem. (How many male gays are seriously interested in having children and raising families?)
How many male gays are seriously interested in having children and raising families?
DeleteSurely, quality not quantity is the important thing here?
If a gay couple is making Herculean efforts to have children and give them a good home then it's shameful to put unreasonable legal barriers in their way.
Put aside the myths and the bigotry.
Focus on real people living real lives.
Further, gay couples seem to have a good track record on raising children. Those children grow up and become adults that any family would be proud to have as a blood relative.
(Note the distinct lack of horns coming out of his head.)
Link
Here is the basis for "the myths and the bigotry": "In a study of homosexuals in San Francisco before the AIDS epidemic, twenty-eight percent of gay men reported having more than a thousand sex partners, and seventy -five percent reported having had more than a hundred. ... Other desires of gay men, like pornography, prostitutes, and attractive young partners, also mirror or exaggerate the desires of heterosexual men." Donald Symons goes on to say "I am not suggesting that heterosexual men would be as likely as homosexual men to have sex most often with strangers, to participate in anonymous orgies in public baths, and to stop off in public restrooms for five minutes of fellatio on the way home from work if women were interested in these activities. But women are not interested." (quoted by Steven Pinker, in How the Mind Works, Chapter 7). I think that on this issue the public has been sold a bill of goods. The mass media have aggressively portrayed the gay lifestyle as normal and healthy, a simple matter of sexual orientation and marriage equality. I think that the gay community, however, is out to change the rules. "Marriage" is no longer an exclusive, life time commitment, but about rights. And isn't that typical of modern society? All we're interested in are rights, not responsibilities - we want the benefits and not the obligations. This is why so many marriages among heterosexuals fail.
Delete"In a study of homosexuals in San Francisco before the AIDS epidemic, twenty-eight percent of gay men reported...
DeleteI don't see how you get here from there.
You need to pick an argument against gay marriage and stick to it. So far, you just seem to be bouncing around at random.
Other desires of gay men, like pornography,...
I don't care. Make an argument.
The mass media have aggressively portrayed the gay lifestyle as normal and healthy...
Do you want to make a claim about the gay lifestyle?
Make it.
Only justify it under the title that you yourself chose which is "Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?".
I think that the gay community, however, is out to change the rules.
I don't care what you "think". Make an argument and back it up with evidence.
This is why so many marriages among heterosexuals fail.
Wha...?
Are you saying that you are worried that marriages among homosexuals will fail like heterosexual marriages?
Or are you linking (somehow?, anyhow?, who knows????) the legalization of gay marriage with the failure of heterosexual marriages?
I don't get it.
What are you claiming?
The question is this: what interest does the state have in regulating sexual behavior? And is the purpose of marriage supposed to be, anyway? The answer is this: the state has an interest in preventing jealous sexual partners from killing each other and in creating stable family units in which to raise children. A marriage then creates a socially and legally recognizable relationship that is sacrosanct. But in order for it to have any meaning it has to be a permanent, binding, exclusive relationship between two partners. And you were absolutely right in your comment of May 10 -- adultery should be a crime for everyone, because that's the whole point of a marriage.
DeleteI cited Pinker as evidence that male homosexuals have a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle. I stress "male" because I realize the psychology is a little different on the female side. Many Lesbians probably think they want a stable, long term relationship and some semblance of a family life, complete with children. But on the male side I think that we are probably talking about "open" relationships with multiple anonymous partners. That being the case, "marriage" is a sick joke -- why should the state legitimize the lifestyle by granting homosexual partners licenses to engage in it? Or to put it another way, I seriously doubt that most "gay" males have the slightest intention of maintaining an exclusively monogamous relationship.
We here a lot these days about marriage "rights." When are we going to here about marriage "responsibilities"?
Make an argument. Make an argument that's connected to your title.
DeleteThe question is this: what interest does the state have in regulating sexual behavior?
(Checks the title)
(...scratches head...)
How is that suddenly "the question"?
The answer is this: the state has an interest in preventing jealous sexual partners from killing each other and in creating stable family units in which to raise children.
That's an answer? In what fantasy world?
Can you or can you not make an argument and stick to it? Preferably something along the lines of "Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?".
And you were absolutely right in your comment of May 10 -- adultery should be a crime for everyone
Does the word "sarcasm" or the phrase "heavy irony" mean anything to you?
...because that's the whole point of a marriage.
What? The whole point of marriage is to make adultery a crime for everyone?
That's new. And more than a little disturbing.
I cited Pinker as evidence that male homosexuals have a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle.
Connect the dots to "Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?". Nice and slow. Take your time.
Many Lesbians probably think they want a stable, long term relationship and some semblance of a family life, complete with children.
So you are in favour of lesbians getting legally married to each other, right?
But on the male side I think that we are probably talking about "open" relationships with multiple anonymous partners.
You "think"? "Probably"? Hmm, spot the problem.
Or to put it another way, I seriously doubt...
Oh you seriously "doubt"?
...I seriously doubt that most "gay" males have the slightest intention of maintaining an exclusively monogamous relationship.
So you have no problem with a homosexual couple getting legally married just as long as they genuinely maintain an exclusively monogamous relationship, right?
It not a case of you just shopping around for an excuse, throwing it into the air and hoping that you won't sound like a bigot?
How do you feel about miscegenation?
The immediate question is "Should same sex marriage be made legal?" In order to answer that question we need to ask the underlying question, "Why should the state regulate sexual conduct at all? Why do we have marriage laws? Why is marriage a civil institution?" If our intention is to give everyone sexual freedom, and and to treat everyone equally, why not abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether? The answer to these questions is that society has a stake in preserving permanent, monogamous relationships. That means you commit yourself to just one person and you don't sleep with anyone else.
DeleteAs for whether or not a homosexual couple should get married if they promise strict fidelity toward each other, it is a question of what is sound public policy. The evidence suggests that the large majority of male homosexuals have no such intention. To legalize the relationship, then, would likely trivialize marriage and open the door for social chaos.
You will notice here that so far I have not brought in the moral argument about homosexuality itself. The immediate question is about what the state should do and so I have restricted my attention to the states secular interest in the matter. Unfortunately we also have several "Christian" denominations here in the US (the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church of the USA)which have decided to ordain practicing homosexuals. This raises raises moral and theological questions. If a church adopts what amounts to a pagan standard of morality, is it still a Christian church? The problem here is that most of them abandoned orthodox Christian theology decades ago. But that does not fall within our purview here.
There is nothing morally wrong with miscegenation. But if I were a pastor I would advise an interracial couple to be careful because of the cultural differences that are likely to be involved. Marriage can be difficult enough even when both parties share the same background!
The answer to these questions is that society has a stake in preserving permanent, monogamous relationships. That means you commit yourself to just one person and you don't sleep with anyone else.
DeleteSo you are ok with same sex marriage under those conditions, right?
The evidence suggests that the large majority of male homosexuals have no such intention.
What happened to the lesbians?
Hmm. Did they just magically disappear or something?
There's plenty of documented history that heteros get divorced all the time.
Why trivialize it? Just don't marry anyone at all.
Yeah, that would work.
(...facepalm...)
You don't have any real evidence. That's why you "think" and "doubt". You cannot predict the intentions of people who want to get married.
It doesn't work for straights.
It doesn't work for gays.
It doesn't work for black people either.
To legalize the relationship, then, would likely trivialize marriage and open the door for social chaos.
You have not made a successful argument. You can't get there from here.
You will notice here that so far I have not brought in the moral argument about homosexuality itself.
Then don't.
Just work out one good argument that does not make you sound like some bigot on the wrong side of history.
There is nothing morally wrong with miscegenation.
Well, that's easy to say now. It's the 21st century.
Takes no moral courage to say that now.
It's the age of the Internet.
What were people like you saying back in...the good old days?
Already, serious arguments are being made against gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteI wonder which church she goes to?
I once heard a pastor say that whenever he heard someone say that he had intellectual problems with the gospel, he wanted to know what her name was.
DeleteBob says we have embarked on a bold, new social experiment, and no one knows exactly where it will lead.
ReplyDeleteLet me help: we've had legal same sex marriage now for seven years here in Canada. The sky still stands. People still get married, go to work, raise children, pay taxes, although the divorce rate is now about 40%... a fairly significant drop over the past decade. Traditional families have felt no difference with the passing of the law. The only blip was when a criminal case revealed that the law here had not been cohesively changed but allowed an old statute to raise the question of divorce - the lawyer argued that because the divorce laws did not recognize the dissolution of same sex marriage, the marriage component was suggested to be now open to debate. The sitting government - a conservative majority - polled the public and found that about 75% of Canadians were NOT in favour of revisiting the SSM debate or changing the law back to a one man/one woman defintion. So the divorce laws were quickly updated and passed without dissent.
In other words, when such equality laws are brought into being, the dire warnings don't pan out in reality. People get married. People get divorced. Life goes on just the same as before for those unaffected. For those affected, they gain legal equality. This is a step forward in exactly the same way that racial reasons for legal inequality are now seen to be a throwback to the days of ignorance and bigotry.
Bob, this is an article that I found today by chance.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how anyone could not be moved by it.
Don't be on the wrong side of history.
Don't end up like the Reverend Phelps or be a slightly more genteel version of him.
My Dad Apologized
by The Nephew
Today I am trying to transition from living on campus to living with my parents. It isn't an easy transition. The transition is a little easier because I have my own quarters at my parents house - the in-law suite above the garage. The upstairs in-law suite is disconnected from the house, so I have some privacy. My boyfriend was helping me get some things organized when my dad called and asked me to come have a talk with him.
I was defensive at first. I assumed he wanted to nag me about something trivial. Lately, our relationship has been fairly strained. We haven't seen eye to eye on very much at all. He asked me to sit down across from him so I did.
He started off by telling me a story about his childhood. When he was a five year old boy in the mid 60's, he had found a new friend. His friend was fun to play with, even though he was a little different than the rest of the kids my father knew. They always played in the woods together, but one day my dad invited his friend home to play.
As soon as my dad brought his friend into the house, my grandfather yelled "Get that n*** out of here." You see, the boy was black. This was the mid 60's in North Carolina..(cont)
Link
It is a very touching story, and no, I don't endorse Fred Phelps.
ReplyDeleteIt might be pertinent here to make an important point about morality. Most people instinctively have what I call a "sociological" morality. Part of it is a matter of intuition, and part of it is a matter of social conditioning. The average person doesn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about ethical and moral issues, but simply goes by what the rest of society around him does. So what happens is that we grow accustomed to a lot of petty stuff - lying, swearing, cheating, and bickering; and then we condemn a few really big things that are social taboos. And up until now, homosexuality was a taboo. So you could have a person who isn't particularly religious, maybe not even particularly honest or kind, who could nevertheless harass and vilify one of the ostracized groups in society.
In contrast to all of this is what I call a "theological" morality, in other words, behavioral norms that are based on what God wants from us. This is largely determined by two things: 1) God's own character - He wants us to have the same values He does, and 2)His purpose for us as earthly creatures. Marriage falls in the latter category. Now when we examine ourselves by God', standards, not society's, there is something unsettling that comes to light: we are all sinners. Deep within the human personality there are motives and drives that are irreligious, anti-social, and self-destructive. We are constantly at war with ourselves trying to tame the beast within. I can look at a gay person and say that what he is doing is wrong, but I can also look within myself and say that what I am thinking is wrong. So he and I, in effect, are in the same boat - we are both cut out of the same cloth, if I can mix my metaphors. He is a fellow human being struggling with his unruly passions and failures, just as I do. He needs help, and so do I. So I cannot place myself above him and condemn him as some kind of inferior being. All I can do is to tell him what I have found in my life, and suggest that it might work for him as well, and hopefully, together, we will journey on the path upward.
He is a fellow human being struggling with his unruly passions and failures, just as I do.
ReplyDeleteYet you deny him the right to get married.
That is unjust.
You don't see him as an individual. You see him as "them". The "other".
That's simple bigotry.
So you could have a person who isn't particularly religious, maybe not even particularly honest or kind, who could nevertheless harass and vilify one of the ostracized groups in society.
Why give these disgusting people de facto support?
Distance yourself from them.
Break from them completely.
Look back on the things you have written on your own blog.
It's ideal Fred Phelps material.
So I cannot place myself above him and condemn him as some kind of inferior being.
Then give him the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Let him pay his taxes and let him vote.
Let him marry the person he loves without fear or ostracism.
Let them serve his country in the armed forces with dignity and honour.
Let him adopt if he is willing to protect and cherish a child.
Let him claim the right to visit his spouse in hospital as a family member.
Let him have protection under the law as a spouse, not better or worse than any other spouse.
And up until now, homosexuality was a taboo.
People no longer believe that the gay community have horns coming out of their heads. Too many people have an uncle or a son or a father whom they love and want them to be happy and get along in life. Let them live without fear of persecution or ridicule or fear of blackmail or discrimination or violence. Give them equal protection under the law.
Judge a person as a person. Judge a person by their character.
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?
Yes.
So you could have a person who isn't particularly religious, maybe not even particularly honest or kind, who could nevertheless harass and vilify one of the ostracized groups in society.
ReplyDeleteThis happened in a church. The people listening would presumably call themselves Christians.
Looking back, this is how people will remember the Church back in the bad old days.
Link